Syria: Obama wants War, defers to Constitution.

The United States Constitution is clear that Congress is the only body that has the power to enact war. Then in 1973, Congress passed and was signed into law legislation commonly known as the War Powers Act which gave the President limited powers to engaged American Armed Forces into conflict without prior Congressional approval.

The caveat to this lies in Sec 2 subset C:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Today, President Obama came out to announce that after seeing the evidence - yesterday presented by
Secretary of State John Kerry - that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had crossed the line in using chemical weapons against his own people. The United Nations earlier today held a press conference that discussed the time table of the assessing the samples taken from Syria in regards to the use of chemical weapons. Now, the UN Inspector did state that the results will in no manner determine who used chemical weapons; rather it will simply confirm the use of the chemical weapons.

In his address today, President Obama made it clear he is prepared to go to war despite the fact that he wouldn't put "boots on the ground" or it wouldn't be "an open time table." Trouble is Mr. President that you don't have the power to engage Syria on your own. The War Powers Act, see above, is very clear that an imminent danger or a national emergency exists that will result in an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or armed forces.

That said, Syria is not a colony of the United States nor do we have armed forces on the ground there either. While the use of chemical weapons appears conclusive the deliverer of those weapons is still open for debate. I know some will point to the evidence that Secretary of State Kerry spoke about the other day but we must look at the Arab League source with a grain of salt.

I applaud President Obama for finally recalling his Constitutional law classes  when he said, "under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress." I also agree with President Obama that the use of chemical weapons on ones own people is an "assault on human dignity." But I don't agree with, "It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons." Why is that many in the East, namely the Middle East, hate the West and namely the United States? Because we use our imperial might to right wrongs that WE feel exist.

No one will deny the use of chemical weapons is bad. The trouble is that Syria is mired in a Civil War and with war comes a natural "assault on human dignity". As Gen. Patton famously coined, "War is Hell!" Now, the United States should do everything diplomatically that we can to help bring an end to the Civil War; diplomatically not military.

Reactions on MSNBC after the speech today had a number of people surprised that President Obama would defer to Congress. It is President Obama's Constitutional duty to defer to Congress. Now the question is: What will President Obama do if Congress doesn't give him authority to engage in war?


**** I had to revise my original post to replace Vice President Biden with Secretary of State Kerry - I was watching the reply when typing with VP Biden in the background. I apologize for the oversight. ***

Real Cause of Mass Shootings?

Today Gov. Cuomo of New York signed into law new legislation that replaced existing law to redefine the assault rifle, limit the size of clips and place more restrictions on gun ownership in New York. Tomorrow, President Obama, surrounded by children, will announce Vice President's Biden's suggestions that President Obama agrees with as he looks to stem the tide of gun violence. Many believe that it will call for the ban on assault rifles and the elimination of large magazine clips.

Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2; has posted a guide to mass shootings in the United States dating back to 1982. 62 mass shootings in all took place over the past 30 years. I took a look at the past ten years of history. Per the shootings reported by Mother Jones we 29 mass shootings with 475 people killed and injured. What the article doesn't discuss is the method used outside of the fact that they were shootings. Let's compare that ten year record to homicides reported in Chicago for 2012.

RedEye data, http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/, has listed a link to all homicides reported in 2012 and by method. After downloading the data and stripping out anything not gunshot related one is left with 442 people killed by gunshot. Now the data doesn't discern from handgun, shotgun, assault rifle, etc. 442 people were killed by gunshot in 2012 alone while we saw 475 people killed and injured during mass shooting over tens year period. Now, I do not diminish the deaths nor mock those that senselessly perished during mass shootings but we need to put the numbers into perspective as we allow our elected officials to use the Second Amendment as a hot political potato.

We can all agree that access to an assault rifle is not for hunting of any sort and the same time we can all agree that guns do not kill. What I mean is that a ridiculous it is to shield your pro-gun stance based on the recreational exercise of hunting as a reason to own an assault rifle lays on the same plane of logical argument of the anti-gun advocates that claim the gun is the killer. The gun does nothing until someone picks it up and uses it.

That person can use it to provide food, target practice, protection, and mass shootings. Again it goes back to the person behind the trigger and their intent on if the gun is being used with respect or being abused. Looking back at the list that Mother Jones put together a common theme exists among the shooters; degrees of mental illness. The trouble is that its not nearly as sexy or politically correct to put our thumb on mental illness as it is on the gun. The gun is the smoke; yet that smoke cannot materialize without the flint - human being.

While I do not promote the notion that returning to the arcane methods of dealing with mental illness and sending the medical community back into the Stone Age, there is something to be learned. Rumor has it that President Obama will address the mental illness aspect insofar that during the background check one will be searched, violating HIPPA in the process, for a history of mental illness along with a felony record. How do we tackle this slippery slope? If we say today it is okay to background check for mental illness what doors will that open for other illnesses for services or rights? When will someone in our political elite display a sober temper and re-direct the ship and deal with the issue at hand - the person behind the gun?

Second Presidential Debate

The format for the second Presidential debate is the town hall. The town hall format allows everyday voters an opportunity to ask questions of the two major party candidates. The moderator in this format is there to ensure that the two candidates do answer the question without trying to sidestep the question. Unfortunately the cynic in me doesn't believe that the questions being asked by the undecided voters of Hoffstra University will be that tough. I suspect a lot of softball's will be thrown up.

Now the debate is to focus on foreign policy which unfortunately is not on the top five issues on the minds of Ameicans. The last Presidential debate President Obama allowed Governor Romney to rule the debate despite talking for an additional 4 minutes. During the Vice Presidential debate, Vice President Biden was more on the offensive although some of the Biden bite was lost on his snickering, smiling and overall condescending demeanor. The question is will President Obama come out "swinging"?

Both candidates need to be cautious in the town hall format as they attempt to make their points and counter their opponents as to not alienate the audience. In the past two the debates the moderator played the role of directing the conversation but in the town hall it will be the audience that will be setting the stage via the questions they ask. With the race a virtual tie and Governor Romney closing the gaps in the swing states it will be critical to the re-election of President Obama that he have a strong showing.

What will constitute a strong showing for President Obama? At the same time, Governor Romney cannot sit back and allow President Obama to dictate the tone and tenor of the debate while not looking stiff and lacking apathy for the audience. What will Governor Romney need to do for a strong showing tonight?

Unfortunately I won't be able to catch the majority of the debate and will have to rely on replays and pundits to help determine the outcome. If I were in the room and was chosen to ask a question, I'd ask:

Are you going to continue the imperialistic agenda that the United States has undertaken since participating in World War II?