• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Many were recently greeted with this news headline: “Gadhafi’s death lets the president claim another foreign policy success and quiet his critics.” The headline accompanies the Politico article “Gadhafi death blunts GOP’s critique.”

Frankly, Gadhafi’s death should heighten the GOP’s criticism of Obama. To the degree the U.S. military was involved in Gadhafi’s death the killing was an illegal act of Obama. After all his preaching on the “rule of law,” when Bush was the object of his rebuke, Obama arrogantly unleashed the killing power of the U.S. military in Libya without the authorization of Congress.

That is no small matter. The ends do not justify the means.

Barack Obama acted in complete disregard of the War Powers Resolution. The law is a necessary and proper power in conjunction with Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war. In other words, Obama acted in complete disregard of the Constitution.

Instead of submitting to the Constitution and U.S. law, Obama submitted U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations. Obama committed over 1 billion in U.S. dollars along with the U.S. military without the approval of the people via their elected representatives.

The War Powers Resolution permits a president to commit the war powers of the U.S. military without congressional authorization in only one circumstance: If the United States is under attack, the president may act with rapid dispatch without the authorization of Congress; with the caveat that if authorization is not gained within 60 days after an initial report the military mission must be terminated.

Obama has been at war for over six months illegally. The administration’s letter informing Congress two days after bombing Libya and the various reports do not make up for the fact that Obama dispatched the U.S. military illegally on day one (the Resolution requires congressional authorization, not notification; even notification or consultation in advance would not have made the president’s actions legal).

Remember, Obama’s reason for bombing Libya was the enforcement of “international law” and, as he recently stated, to prevent Gadhafi from killing his own people.

The killing of Gadhafi is Obama’s victory over U.S. sovereignty and the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

So, what does all this have to do with establishment elitists ignoring the Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause as related to Barack Obama? Answer: Everything.

Obama was shown that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to him. A terrible precedent of allowing the Constitution to be flouted was set. Given the personality profile of Obama – the man who addressed the world from the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin as a presidential candidate – the vetting negligence was downright dangerous.

The political and media establishment effectively told Obama he was so phenomenal, inspiring and awesome that the rules do not apply to him. Consequently, Barack Obama has become a law unto himself. Obama knows the establishment is afraid to call him out on anything of substance – anyone who dares to try is labeled a “racist.”

Is Article II eligibility a matter of substance? Well, it’s only the basis from which all other presidential authority proceeds.

Conservatives understand the left’s love affair with and predestination of Obama. We understand that almost nothing could have prevented the installment of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, in the White House. We understand that the Constitution’s eligibility clause was viewed as archaic and really having no place in our postmodern society as related to the beloved savior of the left.

But the establishment could have at least given us a mock hearing on Obama’s constitutional eligibility. The Senate or a federal court could have a least ruled that only one U.S. citizen parent is necessary to confer the highest class of citizenship, which is required for eligibility. The legal body could have at least ruled that an unbroken chain of natural allegiance to the United States is not required to meet the definition of “natural born citizen” as applied to Barack Hussein Obama II.

Of course the intellectuals of the left know that the weight of the law and history says otherwise. But, at least with a hearing, the appearance of lawfulness and legitimacy would have been projected to a dumbed-down public. A perfunctory hearing would have at least given the appearance that Obama was a man under law and not above it.

The king of “missing records” is sitting in the White House — investigate yourself with “The Secret Life of Barack Hussein Obama”

Perhaps the reason for avoiding sham legal proceedings was the implicit risk of having to open the acacia chest containing the sacred documents, including birth, passport and college records. In context of a legal hearing on the merits, posting images on the Internet does not suffice. In a legal context, the actual production of all relevant documents is required. If a copy of an original is produced, the original must be made available for inspection and authentication.

It would have been a risky move, but if the impression of Obama as a man under law had been established maybe he would have governed with at least some semblance of principle and respect for the Constitution.

Maybe Obama would have held hearings on the constitutionality of forcing individual insurance mandates prior to frantically rushing through thousands of pages of unread legislation.

 

Maybe Obama wouldn’t have been so bold as to report Arizona to the United Nations and sue the state for trying to enforce its border with Mexico.

Maybe Obama would have thought twice about refusing to enforce a duly enacted law of Congress – namely, the Defense of Marriage Act – just because it doesn’t meet his personal approval and ideology.

Maybe his administration wouldn’t have been so brazen as to covertly arm Mexican drug lords in a shocking effort to turn the resulting destruction into a campaign for more gun restriction laws in the United States.

Maybe Obama wouldn’t have done a complete 180 on his professed understanding of the “rule of law” and U.S. war policy.

And, on and on the list goes …

But should we have expected anything less from a man who was elevated above the Constitution before he paradoxically swore to uphold it?


Monte Kuligowski is a Virginia attorney.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.