I feel that I should be posting something about Libya. But mostly what I have to say is that I think it's really too early to have a real sense of what's happening. I've read some pretty good comments, but I think the one I liked the most was from Matt Yglesias, who said he was "struggling to develop real convictions about this Libya business." I'll send everyone over to Erik Voeten at the Monkey Cage as well.
As far as the presidency is concerned: I don't particularly worry about tyranny as far as the president acting "alone" (it's not alone; the executive branch is with him, apparently), but I do think that it would be smart for Barack Obama to press Congress for a rapid vote of some kind once they get back in town. At least, that is, assuming that any sort of military action is ongoing in ten days or so. Generally, the more that Obama can broadly share whatever actions are to come, the less risk there is for him. And given that military action and foreign policy is always inherently risky, presidents who do believe such actions are necessary should do what they can to dilute their personal exposure.
More, I'm sure, later.
Are there people actually worried about "tyranny"? It's hard for me to understand what a tyrannical foreign policy would be, especially if it doesn't mean imposing tyrannical rule on other countries (which I'm assuming isn't the case here)
ReplyDeleteI hear some people proclaim that Obamacare is unconstitutional and others that the constitution mandates gay marriage. I don't recall the constitution having anything about healthcare or gay marriage. It does say that Congress should declare war. When US planes bomb another country that is war. Since very few care it seems to me that constitutional law is whatever a given persons political view wishes.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is tyranny. It is Congress shirking its duty.