25 March 2011 By Jacob G. Hornberger Would someone please tell me what limits constrain
President Obama in foreign affairs? A dictator is a government ruler with omnipotent
powers, one who has no constitutional or legislative
constraints on his powers. Operating through his
military, paramilitary, intelligence, and police
forces, he can do whatever he chooses to do. He can
use his forces, which loyally follow his orders, to
attack, arrest, spy, kidnap, torture, rape, abuse, or
kill. It's that principle — omnipotent power on the
part of the ruler — that defines the dictatorships in
the Middle East. It's what defines dictatorship,
period. Yet, doesn't President Obama exercise omnipotent
powers in foreign affairs? Operating through his
military and paramilitary forces, which loyally follow
his commands, the president has the power to invade
and occupy any nation on earth. He has the power to
kidnap any person in the world and send him to prison
camps located in various parts of the world. Or he can
send prisoners to foreign dictatorships with orders to
secure information or a confession through torture. He
can spy on and monitor people overseas. He can impose
sanctions and embargoes on recalcitrant foreign
regimes, even if such meaures kill thousands of
innocent people in the process. All this the president can do on his own
initiative. In foreign affairs, President Obama can do
whatever he wants, and he has the most powerful and
loyal military and paramilitary forces in history to
carry out his commands. Of course, the president doesn't do these things
personally, but no dictator personally carries out or
enforces his own dictates. That's what thousands of
bureaucratic personnel, including those in the
military, are all about. They exist to faithfully and
loyally carry out the orders of their boss. That's the
purpose of the U.S. military, the NSA, and the CIA: to
serve the president by loyally and obediently carrying
out whatever orders he issues. Consider Libya, for example, another country that
has never attacked the United States. The president
will soon order his military to attack the Libyan
regime of Muammar Gaddafi, killing countless Libyans
in the process. The military will faithfully and loyally carry out
the president's orders and ask Americans to "support
the troops" in the president's war against the
Libyans. Not one single officer or enlisted man will
refuse the president's orders because they all know
what will happen if they do. Those who refuse will be
arrested, imprisoned, tortured, abused, and severely
punished by their superior officers. Military personnel will convince themselves that by
following the president's orders, they are fulfilling
their oath to support and defend the Constitution,
protecting "national security," and defending the
rights and freedoms of the American people. I repeat: What constitutional and legislative
constraints exist on the president's powers in foreign
affairs? Aren't such powers as omnipotent as those
exercised by the biggest dictators in history? Is an American dictator in foreign affairs what our
American ancestors envisioned when they brought the
federal government into existence with the
Constitution? On the contrary, their aim was the precise
opposite. That's why the Constitution delegated the
power to declare war to Congress, not the president.
The Framers made it so the president was prohibited
from waging war without first securing a declaration
of war from Congress. Our American ancestors also sent a powerful message
to the president with the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and
Eighth Amendments: that he is prohibited from
searching people's homes, businesses, and personal
effects without a judicially issued warrant based on
probable cause; that he is prohibited from imposing
cruel and unusual punishments on people; that he is
prohibited from denying due process of law to anyone;
and that he is prohibited from denying anyone the
right to a jury trial and to a speedy trial. In other words, our ancestors envisioned a
president whose powers were limited, not only on a
domestic basis — that is, not only here within the
United States — but also on a foreign basis. They
opposed dictatorship, period. The president as dictator in foreign affairs has
come into existence as part and parcel of the turn
that the U.S. government took toward empire. That was
when America abandoned its role as a
limited-government, constitutional republic. That was
when U.S. presidents began ignoring constitutional
restraints on power in foreign affairs. That was when
the courts began declining to enforce the Constitution
in foreign affairs. That was when the American people
began deferring to the authority of the president, the
Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. In his Fourth of July speech to Congress, John
Quincy Adams foretold what would happen to America
should she become an empire: "The fundamental maxims
of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to
force. She might become the dictatress of the world."
What's the solution for presidential dictatorship
in foreign affairs? The solution is obvious: a
dismantling of America's military empire and a
restoration of a limited-government constitutional
republic, along with strict constitutional and
legislative constraints on the power of the president,
together with an independent judiciary with the
courage and fortitude willing to enforce them. Most
important, as our ancestors taught us, the solution
necessitates an aroused citizenry whose hearts and
minds are aflame with the principles and spirit of
liberty. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The
Future of Freedom Foundation. Comments 💬 التعليقات |