violating the Constitution and his Oath to preserve, protect, and defend it. Finally, a Law Professor and the editorial board of the NYT have the same assessment of the Constitution as I do. At least now someone does... publicly. [See link below.]
So, why aren't the Repubs all over this? Probably because they want the same illegal power that Obama has. They, too, have ignored the Constitution... and they want to be able to do it again relative to war.As I've said more than once, at the highest levels we have an OUTLAW Fed Gov't. There's no question about that...none whatsoever. Both political parties violate the U.S. Constitution... especially in regard to war.
Let's be perfectly clear: the Executive Branch has NO Constitutional authority to put this nation at war. Legally, only the Congress can do that. The Commander-in-Chief cannot legally ignore parts of the Constitution just because he's the Head Honcho of the military. What has been done relative to war by various Administrations ever since the end of WW II is blatantly unconstitutional. In addition, the War Powers Act does not supercede the Supreme Law of the Land; Congress must declare war.
Not just my opinion. Be Well
p.s. Reason.com is a biased source, but I cited the piece because it reported the unprecedented view of the NYT's editorial board. [The NYT agrees that Obama's ISIS war violates the U.S. Constitution.] Lastly, in the interest of accuracy, the NYT's editorial board (or perhaps it's Reason.com---hard to tell the way the article is written) has the following technical error in its opinion. It refers to "Article 8" concerning the fact that the Congress declares war. It's not Article 8, but rather Article 1, SECTION 8.