Here’s another sign that Democrats — namely Obama — have concerns about the results of the coming midterm elections. Obama has already stated he will enact executive orders to push amnesty for illegal aliens. Now there’s talk that Obama is weighing options to close the Guantanamo Bay unlawful enemy combatant detention facility. Does Obama believe that sometime between the November elections and the end of the113th Congress term he must take an action?As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “The White House is drafting options that would allow President Barack Obama to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by overriding a congressional ban on bringing detainees to the U.S., senior administration officials said. Such a move would be the latest and potentially most dramatic use of executive power by the president in his second term. It would likely provoke a sharp reaction from lawmakers, who have repeatedly barred the transfer of detainees to the U.S. The discussions underscore the president’s determination to follow through on an early campaign promise before he leaves the White House, officials said, despite the formidable domestic and international obstacles in the way.”
But just as with Obama’s intentions to grant amnesty — Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution grants the power on matters of naturalization to Congress — so it is in the matter of GITMO. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 the Constitution states the Congress has the power, “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; and make Rules concerning captures on Land and Water.”So here we go again, President Obama — the Constitutional scholar – doesn’t appear to read, know or follow the document he was sworn to uphold and faithfully execute. Obama, by the rule of law, the Constitution, does not have the enumerated power to make any rules concerning these unlawful enemy combatants captured on land or water. As well, any actions he takes should resurrect the questions about Army SGT Bowe Bergdahl and the exchange of five senior members of the Taliban — another example of Obama’s lawlessness. Oh by the way, what is the status of Bergdahl’s investigation? But I digress…
The Wall Street Journal says, “administration officials say Mr. Obama strongly prefers a legislative solution over going around Congress (yeah, right). At the same time, a senior administration official said Mr. Obama is “unwavering in his commitment” to closing the prison—which currently has 149 inmates detained in connection with the nation’s post-9/11 war on terrorism—and wants to have all potential options available on an issue he sees as part of his legacy. However, a unilateral action “would ignite a political firestorm, even if it’s the best resolution for the Guantanamo problem,” said American University law professor Stephen Vladeck. Republicans are sure to oppose it, while Democrats could be split, he said.”
Obama fears what will happen if he doesn’t have Harry Reid running as his obstructionist come January 2015 — which means he’s looking at how much he can do by executive order and fiat as opposed to having to contend with a House and Senate held by the opposition GOP. It’s funny, after the midterm debacle of 1994, then-President Bill Clinton worked with a GOP House and Senate — with a constitutional conservative legislative agenda — and was able to balance the budget, create surpluses, and enact welfare reform. That is the nature of bipartisanship. And oh by the way, President Ronald Reagan was able to do likewise and enact a huge tax reform agenda with a Democrat House and Senate.But Barack Hussein Obama is an intransigent ideologue and demagogue who refuses to admit being wrong or making mistakes and believes his political agenda and promises override the rule of law.
The Wall Street Journal says “Mr. Obama likely has two options for closing Guantanamo, should Congress extend the restrictions, which it could do after the midterm elections. He could veto the annual bill setting military policy, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, in which the ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. is written. While the veto wouldn’t directly affect military funding, such a high-stakes confrontation with Congress carries significant political risks. A second option would be for Mr. Obama to sign the bill while declaring restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners an infringement of his powers as commander in chief, as he has done previously.” But that is a flawed argument since the Constitution does not grant Obama — or any Commander-in-Chief — powers to make rules concerning captures.
Perhaps we should send President Barack Hussein Obama Article I and Article II of the Constitution and require him to write a comparative essay — no more than 1000 words — to be printed in every major newspaper in America outlining the enumerated powers of the legislative and executive branches. Yep, perhaps, he could do that while in the air flying around the country doing fundraisers.