A very wise Constitutional scholar once said:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Yeah. About that.
Another day, another president who does things totally different than how he campaigned. For the most part, I still think President Obama is doing a great job considering the hand he’s been dealt. Even non-partisan fact checkers have indicated that he’s been keeping consistent with many of his campaign promises. But a flop of this magnitude is a big deal not only because of how we ripped Bush for doing the exact same thing a few years earlier, but also because Obama is going against his word at a time when this country is insanely broke (unless you happen to be in the top 1%. I suspect most of you aren’t). Attacking a country just because its leaders are bad to their people is sooooo 2003. Yet, we’re at it again.
You know what they say: “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” That apparently applies to United States presidents as well.