Obama sets rules for the Military, rules for capture, rules of engagement, authorizes specified numbers of troops on missions he invents, and so on, as Obama continues to exercise unlimited usurpation of Military powers! But, the head Commander of the United States Military, the Commander-in-Chief, is to receive his orders from the United States Congress exclusively. Neither can any laws trump the Constitution. Nor are violations exerting dictatorial powers justified or excusable simply because such overreach of Presidential authority has been exercised in the past. [1] During the Quasi War, John Adams took no independent action to escalate hostilities against the French. Instead, Congress passed a series of acts and Adam complied with the statues that were passed. When Adams became lenient and diverted from these guidelines, he was reprimanded by the Supreme Court when he attempted seize a vessel sailing from a French port. Congress had only allowed him to act to seize ships heading to French ports.[3] The President was admonished.[2] My note: Our second President, John Adams, was authorized by Congress to seize ships heading to French ports. He over extended his authority however, when he attempted to seize a vessel heading away from a French port. As Congress had only authorized Adams to seize vessels going to and not from France, President Adams was reprimanded by the Supreme Court. My note: Our third President, Thomas Jefferson, during the First Barbary War, was ordered by Congress to protect American ships and citizens against aggression. Jefferson announced that he was unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense. Jefferson understood the restrictions placed upon his power to conduct military hostilities were clearly defined by the provisions of the United States Constitution. In the same spirit, Thomas Jefferson acted in a characteristically deferential manner when dealing with Congress in relation to the First Barbary War. After approval was given by Congress to protect American ships and citizens against aggression, Jefferson announced that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”[4] (Ibid.) Evidently, Jefferson understood that the restrictions placed upon his power to conduct military hostilities were clearly defined during the Constitution’s ratification.[3] About the limitation of Presidential powers specifically as Commander-in-Chief, as found in the Constitution, The Federalist #69 reads: The declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies. . .appertain to the legislature:[4] The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.” (The Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, Edited by Jacob E. Cooke (Middletown: Wesleyan University, 1961), 465.)[5] tenthamendmentcenter/2014/04/09/letters-of-marque-and-reprisal-an-introduction/ NOTES: [1]Opinion in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), which held that a migratory bird treaty with Canada enabled the national government to regulate the protection and harvesting of migratory birds within the United States, even though without the treaty the national government would not have the power to do so. This contradicts the ancient Law of Agency whereunder an agent, in this case federal officials, may not acquire new powers from the exercise of a power, but only by delegation from the principal. constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm [2]tenthamendmentcenter/2014/04/09/letters-of-marque-and-reprisal-an-introduction/ [3]Ibid. [4]Ibid. [5]Ibid.
Posted on: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:40:43 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015