Power to Cripple the Executive

(Editor's Note: This article is taken from the author's original source with permission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the National Alliance Foundation).


"Irresponsibility is the joy of everyone--especially government."


It is remarkable to hear all of the flailing angst from the left about how treacherous the prosecution of the Iraq War was, especially considering how blatantly responsible progressives are for its process and initiation. Back in 1973, Republican members of Congress as well as President Richard Nixon fought to prevent the passage of the War Powers Resolution, a disastrous piece of legislation sponsored by those of the center-leftist section who desired to remove blame for military actions from members of Congress, most of whom were overwhelmingly of the president's opposition. 

Despite furious debate, as well as an eleventh hour veto attempt by the president, Congress passed the legislation, washing its hands of future engagements which might not sit well with the future voter percentages as well as benefiting anti-war candidates. Essentially, the resolution gives the president the power to deploy troops for up to 90 days without Congressional approval, after which the chambers of deliberation must either pass a declaration of war, or authorize further military force. In short, Congress can approve conflict entrance without having to take responsibility, which falls flatly on the president, and may cost the executive dearly when reelection year rolls around. 


Pleased to carry out their duty, Congress moved to pass President Bush's resolution in 2002, authorizing continued force in Iraq while not going so far as to make a declaration of war. This allowed them to come out on headline news, boasting of their involvement in committees relating to the war while plotting their own political fortunes in the future. For Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it would be leadership posts in 2007, and for Democrats such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, it was dramatic presidential runs in 2004 and 2008.

But regardless of their poster styled "truth stance" in relation to Iraq, the Democrats refused to cut funding for American soldiers serving in the Middle East, failing to acknowledge the fact that such a move would end the war, just like President Obama's did when his was inaugurated in 2009.  Rather than save the lives they pledged to protect, the party stood for its own election interests, refusing to make the difficult choice which would have looked bad politically, yet still served the interests which they had run to benefit. 


The War Powers Resolution must be repealed before it causes more needless death and the assassination of presidential images in American history. Any time Congress is allowed to bypass its constitutional responsibilities is an opportunity for corruption and the miscarriage of duties to seep into the political mesh, and situation which should at all costs be outmaneuvered. 




Danielle Conway


Law and Liberty Blog Adjunct Writer

Finish the Job!

Only days ago, North Korea launched a decisive and unprovoked strike on an island near South Korea, killing four and initiating what some view as a deadly foreshadowing of greater conflict. The communist country, led by the ailing Kim Jong-il, seems to be making one last appeal to demonstrate its might before the dictator passes on and leaves his younger son to govern and rule the policy of the economically broken country. Due to the unique situation with the unwarranted attack on South Korea and the oncoming transfer of power, a possibility is visible for President Barack Obama to show courage and intervene to finish what might have been accomplished with a more aggressive push following the Tet Offensive of the 1960s.

In the past, North Korea proved to be a massive threat because of its ability to generate and launch nuclear weapons without much regulation from mainland China or Russia. But today, with the rash attack by the communist defense council, even the war-abstaining United Nations would be forced to agree to the use of force, and America could be seen as assisting a major ally, and far cry from the uncertainty and quagmire of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.

A UN coalition backed by troops of the U.S. Military and British Royal Armed Forces would be able to stake out ground in the northern province, forcing Kim Jong-il to reconsider his use of armaments or suffer the international fallout of refusal. Combined with South Korean Defense soldiers and Japanese aide, the joint assault could bring about a culmination of defeat for the communist regime, reducing its iron grasp on the country to little more than a light touch. The only major obstacle to be considered is mainland China, yet with America's close connections in the free trade network, its is unlikely that the larger country would look towards denying its economic ally the freedom to change a nearby nation.

The benefits of swift action towards North Korea are many and diverse. By eliminating a major nuclear threat,  the allied forces would be able to alleviate tensions in the zone, weakening Russian and Chinese influence and encouraging a deescalation of communism in the countries of Vietnam and Burma, resulting in a dramatic realignment of the world and its major players in both economic and militaristic affairs. Providing such nations chose to adapt a more pro-trade stance after their shrugging off of the communist fist, they would become invaluable partners for the United States, helping to alleviate the nation's closeness to China for manufacturing purposes.

America does not enjoy the ability any longer to simply sit and watch as countries continue to exercise their brutal and totalitarian regimes upon innocent civilians. In accordance with basic morals, these nations must be brought to case and forced to change their views--or face the consequences. Rampant extermination of freedom and its principles has only negativity to offer, a slow and destructive path to inadequacy which will inevitably damage the world's liberated populations.

Time is running out, and Barack Obama must have the courage to act--or to step aside and let others do so for him.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues