Trump Will Reinvigorate NATO

In many precincts, there is this misleading suggestion that Donald Trump is backing off of America’s traditional support for NATO, a claim undermined by a reading of his actual position. Joint security pacts are only sustainable when all participants have security capabilities; Trump gets this. That is why NATO calls for each nation to spend 2% of GDP on defense to avoid free-riders. Otherwise, nations can rely on the defense capabilities of other nations. That isn’t collective security; it is one country providing a free, outsourced military for others.

Sadly, many nations are not spending the 2%, instead benefiting from the U.S. security umbrella without pulling their weight. That is unsustainable; even President Obama has called for more defense spending from NATO allies. Alliances, like personal friendships, are two-way streets. States like Estonia and Poland are meeting the minimum while those like Italy and Spain are in default. Italy, a wealthy country, spends less than 1% of GDP on defense. Germany, home to Europe’s top economy, is little better at a meager 1.2%. Relatively poor countries like Poland, Estonia, and Greece are meeting their NATO requirement while wealthy European states are gladly allowing their military to atrophy, enjoying a defense apparatus subsidized by the American taxpayer who is already carrying over $19 trillion in national debt.

Trump recognizes the 2% minimum is useless without enforcement mechanisms. Unless there are consequences for failing to spend 2% (either a fine or loss of membership), European nations will continue to ignore the requirement. Trump’s plan would simply put in penalties for falling short of 2% and would reinvigorate NATO. By forcing Europe to invest its military and thereby reconfirm its commitment to joint security, the alliance will be stronger and could more easily deter Russia. Putin sees a Europe with decaying powers and weak militaries; it is no wonder he is pursuing expansion. A weak Europe has given Putin room to expand, and by being lax on NATO enforcement, we have allowed Europe to weaken. Given NATO’s reliance on American power, we alone have the leverage to get the 23 members who inadequately invest in defense to meet their commitment. The result will be an energized NATO that makes Eastern Europe more not less safe.

Trump’s push for more NATO spending is the only way to stand up to Putin and protect our allies. Islamic terror, an Expansionist Russia, and a strengthening Iran are global problems. They require global responses. Europe should recognize this, especially after a string of terrorist attacks have hit Belgium, France, and now even Germany. Our current policy of blindly subsidizing many European powers has turned NATO from a collective defense pact into a bunch of nations free-riding on the US (and to a lesser extent the UK, Poland, Estonia, and Greece who are spending the 2%). Our European partners need to determine whether they want to help provide and enjoy collective security and meet their commitments.

Trump’s policy will return NATO to its original promise-a transatlantic alliance of democracies all providing for the security of each other. That will make NATO stronger and its collective defense mechanism more credible. Putin will no longer be able to devour the decaying carcass of Europe; instead, the Continent will be able to deter Putin and other aspiring powers like Russia and China. We can then deal with these nations from a position of strength, striking deals when possible and pushing back when necessary. America and the world will be better for it.

Conseratives: Don’t Pledge #NeverTrump

On Friday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump, stepping on whatever debate momentum Senator Marco Rubio had and becoming the first major elected official to support the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President. Conservatives lit up the Governor for his endorsement with some like Erick Erickson pledging never to support Trump. In fact, #NeverTrump was trending across the United States on Friday night as conservatives lined up against Trump, making the same pledge as Erickson. This is a mistake.

Let me be clear, I am not suggesting conservatives vote for Trump in the Republican primary as I am not a Trump supporter. I have supported Ohio Governor John Kasich since he announced last summer and continue to today (full disclosure: I have also donated to his campaign). I believe Kasich is the only candidate running today with any meaningful accomplishments in government, has an excellent record in Ohio, plays to our hopes rather than our fears, and is eminently electable. Across the board, Kasich is a better choice than Trump or Rubio or Senator Ted Cruz. I hope you vote for him in the primary.

That said, Trump is the clear frontrunner for the nomination (I would peg his odds at roughly 70%), and for the sake of argument, let’s assume he is the nominee. What should conservatives do in the General when he faces Clinton? Those saying #NeverTrump are pledging not to vote for him in that election, which is an error. Conservatives have five choices: stay home, vote 3rd party, don’t vote in the Presidential election but vote in down-ballot races, vote Hillary Clinton, or vote Trump. Hopefully, we agree staying home is the worst choice and a dereliction of civic duty. There are still important down-ballot races with qualified conservatives, and those candidates need our support. In the event of a credible 3rd party candidate (I would define credible as consistently polling in the 20’s), there may be a strong case to vote for that person over Trump or Hillary (I think this may happen with Mitt Romney possibly running as an independent conservative). Let’s set that scenario aside, as the question is whether it is wise to pledge never to support Trump, no if, ands, or buts. That leaves: Trump, Hillary, or blank ballot.

Ultimately, choosing a blank ballot or voting for Hillary makes it more likely she will be President by lowering the number of Democrat and Independent votes she must draw. I struggle to see how conservatives are better off with Clinton than Trump. Yes, Trump has changed positions on many issues over the years, but Clinton is a committed leftist who has moved further left to ward off the challenge from a socialist. On matters of policy, I am sympathetic to the notion Trump is a wildcard given his inconsistency, but is he going to be worse than Hillary? Yes, there is a risk Trump nominates a liberal to the Supreme Court, but is there any doubt Hillary would? Sometimes, you are better with the devil you don’t know than the devil you do, which would be the case in a Trump v. Clinton election even for conservatives more dubious of Trump than me.

In a vacuum, would Donald Trump be my choice for President? No, but general elections are choices. Not choosing one is a choice for the other; opposing Trump helps Hillary. Trump is a gamble, yes, but Clinton is a sure-fire losing hand. Relative to Hillary, the risk of a Trump Presidency is skewed to the upside. Trump is also not wrong on everything; he is right we need to be tougher on China. They hack our systems, steal our intellectual property, and are taking territory in the China Sea. He is right that the working class is being screwed; median wages are lower than when George W. Bush became President. Both parties are to blame. On foreign affairs, I would also note Clinton has not been a particular success. How’s the Russian reset? Or Libyan intervention? Or situation in Syria? I do think Trump is peddling some fiction to get elected (note: I am not excusing this behavior) and would govern more as a centrist technocrat, so I believe he would be a more competent President than Clinton. Even if you disagree with that assessment, which is admitted speculation, Clinton will be at least as damaging to the conservative cause as he would be given her platform. She will certainly push for leftist policies whereas he may not. His upside exceeds his downside relative to Clinton.

I would also note that much of what conservatives hate/fear (the Muslim ban, his insults, his comments on libel laws, his finger on the nuclear button etc.) are likely campaign bluster. Again, I am not excusing that behavior, but it suggests he could be a fine President. Even if I am wrong, our government has well-built structures that limit the power of the President, ensuring these positions could not become law. The strength of our institutions deserve more credit than some alarmists let on, further diminishing his downside. While Trump enjoys a Twitter tirade, he has a history of avoiding direct confrontation (with the exception of his personal punching bag, Jeb Bush) as illustrated by his handling of Megyn Kelly among others. I see no reason to feel less safe with Trump our Commander-in-Chief than Clinton.

#NeverTrump conservatives should also ask themselves whether his VP choice could sway them. Ultimatums made rashly can make one look foolish when one reverses or keep one anchored to bad positions out of an aversion to reversing. Does Cruz (or someone else) allay some concerns? If yes, perhaps, it is best to wait for him to make that choice. Assuming he is the nominee, who Trump picks as his VP will be fascinating and enlightening. If I were to make 5 guesses, I would go (in descending order of likelihood): David Petraeus, a business person (to emphasize the anti-politician theme—this un-named pick on my part is a clear cop-out), John Kasich, Bill O’Reilly, and Chris Christie. Who really knows though?

The General Election is a choice, and Trump is a better one than Clinton, especially as his worst ideas won’t become law with any reasonable congress if he even pursues them.

Conservatives could stand to benefit from some of Trump’s populism, and we do need toughness against China. He would also likely surround himself with smart people, providing wise council. A couple dozen people I know, whose judgment I respect and whose character is unimpeachable, are Trump supporters, and their support may have softened my opposition. The twittersphere showcases the worst of his support but is not representative of much of his base. Questions of moral fitness aside, I do think Trump, whom would likely govern as a centrist and pragmatist, would be a decent President, and the fact Clinton with her server and serial lying is equally unfit renders that concern moot in the General Election.

Conservatives have every right to oppose Trump in the primary. However should he be the nominee (very likely), we should be anti-Hillary in 2016, and this may mean voting for Donald Trump. Pledging #NeverTrump is a mistake.

If you like what you read, follow me on Twitter too!

The State of the Union: Strong But Unsatisfactory

Later today, President Barack Obama will deliver his final State of the Union Address, filled with the typical pomp and circumstance. Following the pattern of virtually every speech given by each of his predecessors in the Modern Era, Obama will declare the State of our Union is “strong” or something to that effect. Democrats certainly will hope voters feel exactly that way in November as they try to retain the White House for a third straight term, a feat they have not accomplished since President Truman. However, the leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has a campaign slogan (Make America Great Again) that could be taken to imply the state of our union is not strong.

So cutting through the partisan spin; what really is the state of the union? I would argue it is strong but unsatisfactory. The fact is that America is the best positioned nation in the world, but there is still much work to be done. In this sense, both sides have valid points to be made; our situation is not necessarily as dire as republicans campaigning suggest while there are greater risks to our future than the President has conceded.

To be frank, the fact we are strong is not really an accomplishment for the President. While we were in deep recession in 2009 when Obama assumed Office, America was still the strongest nation on earth. While our banking system had been crippled by the Housing Crisis and Lehman failure, requiring the Bush Administration to launch widespread bailouts to avert Depression, the worst of the financial crisis had passed by January 20, 2009, and depression was off the table. America was still the center of innovation with the best technology firms in the world residing here, mainly in California. We were the clear global hegemon economically and militarily.

Today, I would argue that last sentence still rings true. Yes, GDP growth has been undeniably sluggish, but our economy is far larger than any other, and it adds far more value than export-driven China, which has run into significant problems of its own of late. The official unemployment rate is down to 5%, and even if we adjust for some of the cyclical weakness in the labor force participant rate, unemployment would be 6.5-7%, which is neither great nor horrible. Yes, China is saber-rattling in the South China Sea, and Putin has caused problems in Syria and Eastern Europe, but our military and naval wherewithal is without rival.

China’s military might is entirely regional, and Putin lacks the economic power to exert influence much beyond his own borders and Syria. Given his nuclear arsenal, we cannot force him to do anything, but he can’t force other nations to do much either. He and China are undoubtedly challenging the U.S. Security Order with limited successes, but the fact remains, there is nary a region in the world where we are not a key (if not the key) player. America is the lone indispensable nation on the face of the earth. The setbacks and loss of influence in the Middle East, parts of Eastern Europe, and select spots in South Asia are not markers of inevitable decline but rather missteps quickly reversible under new, more assertive American leadership.

Consider the following questions. Is there a nation you would rather be today than the United States? Would you trade America’s future for that of another nation? Is there a more dynamic economy on earth? Would you swap our military power for that of another country? Is there a nation where you can enjoy more political freedoms or economic potential than here?

Chances are you would answer “no” to all (or at least most) of those questions. How then, can one say the state of our union is anything but strong? Again, the same was true in 2008, and it is a testament to just how well positioned America is and how dynamic the American people are that these statements are almost taken as a given. Being “strong” is really not an accomplishment of the President; the accomplishment is not torpedoing that strength, something almost no President could manage to do. That is why the American people rightly demand more than a strong state of the union.

Now, Obama has some indisputable accomplishments. The economy is stronger than in 2008, but it is not strong enough. GDP growth of around 2-2.5% has been positive but not spectacular. Real median income is lower than in 2000; the typical worker has not felt this recovery. This has been a problem for 15 years and is a serious challenge neither party has done a good job of addressing. We need to make structural reforms, restructure our tax code, and improve education to build a stronger economy from the bottom-up to grease the tracks of upward mobility. A poverty rate of 15% continues to be a stain on this country, and our programs need to focus more on lifting people from poverty rather than simply making poverty more comfortable. We need to reform, and yes cut, entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to ensure they will be solvent for those of us who really need them in our later years. Is our economy strong? Yes. Satisfactory? No.

Beyond economics, we have unsatisfactory progress in other areas. Race relations are not where they should be, and in too many communities, police-community (particularly in black precincts) relations are not where they should be. Many parties (from a media that generalizes every story to bad cops to self-aggrandizing community leaders) share the blame, but we need to take steps in local communities to rebuild trust. Gun violence is too high, and this nation does not handle mental illness as well as it could. There are no easy answers, and the gun issue is too often politicized. The scourge of violence is real though. Is our culture strong? Yes. Satisfactory? No.

In foreign affairs, we do not have a clear strategy to permanently roll back ISIS from Iraq and Syria and its outposts in Libya and elsewhere, though our military certainly has the capability to defeat the terrorist organization. We have ceded influence to Iran in the Middle East. Our Eastern European allies are on edge as NATO seems ambivalent about a bellicose Putin, and we are not investing sufficiently in a 21st century Navy that can guarantee freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. We have the tools to address these international challenges; it is just a matter of gathering the will and thinking in years not weeks when budgeting and planning. Is our international standing strong? Yes. Satisfactory? No.

The President is right to say the state of our union is strong, and America continues to be the world’s best positioned nation—the world’s only superpower. That said, republicans are right to say we can do a lot to make America even stronger and build an economy that works better for everyday citizens. GOP candidates need to refine their rhetoric and avoid doom and gloom, which is not in sync with reality.

The genius of America is that we are always striving to make the country better because the pursuit of happiness and liberty is an unending effort. We are never satisfied with the state of the union. The GOP should offer clear contrasts with and criticisms of current policy but must maintain optimism. We are an optimistic people, and the optimism is entirely justified.

After all, how else should we feel about the strongest, most morally just nation on earth that serves as a beacon of hope for oppressed people the world over?

The Paris Agreement: Yet Another Meaningless Deal

On Saturday, nearly 200 nations signed a climate pact that President Barack Obama called a “turning point for the world.” Obama argued this agreement was the one “the world needed.” Upon reading the actual text of the deal, it would appear the world didn’t need very much, if the President’s claim is to be taken at face value. In the end, this deal is as fanciful and toothless as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of nearly a century ago that banned war in the wake of World War I. While the failings of this deal are unlikely to be as grave (World War II was pretty awful, you know), it suffers from the same fatal flaw: no enforceability.

This agreement doesn’t actually do anything; it is merely a voluntary plan whereby nations will unilaterally cut emissions or something. The over-arching goal is to keep global temperatures rising 2 degrees (Celsius) from the current expectation of some in the science community for 2.7-3.7 degrees. If this voluntary deal works really well (!!!), the agreement leaves open the possibility of pushing for a more aggressive 1.5 degree target.

This agreement “invites Parties to communicate their first nationally determined contribution no later than when the Party submits its respective instrument of ratification, accession, or approval.” This agreement merely invites nations to come up with their own plan to bring down emissions to unspecified levels to lead to less climate change. Does that sound vague? Don’t worry; this agreement also creates an “ad hoc working group” to monitor nations’ progress because groups of bureaucrats are renowned for getting things done.

Signing to this deal merely signifies the “Voluntary participation authorized by each Party involved.” Are there any enforcement mechanisms that punish nations for failing to bring emissions down (or for some developed nations, rise more slowly)? Nope. We are operating solely on the trust system—no way that could produce underwhelming results. Some hailed the underlying goal of the deal as ground-breaking: “Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.” Others may contend that the phrase “as soon as possible” means absolutely nothing and gives offending nations plenty of room to maneuver if confronted (i.e. more action just wasn’t possible). This deal also says developed nations are to give developing ones at least $100 billion/year by 2020 to help fund their development, thereby making income redistribution an international affair. Good luck getting everyone to write those checks…

Those who are unconvinced climate change is the world’s most pressing problem and aren’t prepared to crush the economy to cut emissions should actually be thrilled by today’s deal as no new policies have to be implemented. If we actually wanted to cut emissions, any deal needs to have set targets and strict ramifications for violations (for example, automatic WTO admissible tariffs to hurt the economy of offenders). Otherwise, developing nations, like China and India, will cheat, pointing to the fact there were no restrictions on the West’s industrial revolution a century ago. Of course, they benefit from our revolution (India doesn’t have to invent the car for instance), so there should be restrictions if we are to have some, though perhaps not quite as onerous for a bit of time. Adhering to unenforceable deals threatens to leave the American economy relatively uncompetitive as other nations’ flout the deal’s requirements.

Fortunately for the climate alarmists in our midst, the private sector is already helping to solve the problem. Our abundance of natural gas is hurting coal, and with or without government regulations, coal will likely go the way of the dodo bird in this country over the coming decades. As we export LNG, energy production around the world will only get cleaner. Automotive emissions keep improving, and the advent of the electric car will only help. Continued advancement in battery technology could facilitate a smaller, cleaner grid while improvements in transmission will make nuclear more viable in more regions. Even in countries like China, popular discontent over ridiculous pollution levels could force the regime to act over time if only to keep the public happy. Indian cities aren’t far behind.

However, our President is a climate alarmist, which leaves one befuddled as to why he would be happy with this deal that is voluntary and lacking enforcement mechanisms. This climate pact is strikingly similar to the Iran Deal, which is nonbinding (heck no one even signed the agreement!) and has laughable verification measures (not to mention the fact that re-imposing sanctions with Russian approval and European unity is as likely as Hell freezing over, unless of course unfettered climate change here serious impacts the temperature down below…).

Our President seems to have a lot of trust in foreign powers to do the right thing despite their national interest. It’s a fascinating turn for a President who so recognized the free-rider problem, he coerced Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face stiff financial penalties (the individual mandate). Of course, if the insurance under Obamacare is as good and affordable as advertised, wouldn’t people be clamoring for it and not need coercion? I guess, unlike China and Iran, Americans can’t be trusted to the right thing.

Moreover, our President may see no need to make legally-binding agreements since he never feels the law binds him as evidenced by the lawless immigration executive orders and potential one on Guantanamo Bay. Ultimately, our President seems to enjoy doing things for the sake of doing things. That is how Democrats inevitably react to gun violence (just pass a law, even if it wouldn’t have stopped this shooting). Obama wanted a deal with Iran to check off a box on his legacy, even if the deal was a poor one. Similarly, he wanted to do something on the climate. We can all sleep easy and claim the moral high ground now that this high-sounding, completely unenforceable garble has been agreed to. In the view of our leadership, just doing something is an achievement, results be damned. That is the only way to explain the Iran Deal, the Paris Accord, gun violence reactions, and our tepid ISIS bombing campaign. At least we can feel good about ourselves as the world implodes!

Now, I don’t believe economy-crushing cuts make sense, but it astonishes me how horrendous of a negotiator our President and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, are. They are either delusional or lying when calling such a deal as this a groundbreaker. If we ever want to deal successfully with China or Putin or Iran, this naïve idealism is dangerous.

Recently, Obama and the Left have often linked climate change to terrorism. Well, the Paris Agreement will do as much for emissions as those 20 bombings/day have done to roll back ISIS.

Just like coal, this deal will end up being a puff a smoke, not worth the two weeks of diplomats’ hot air blown in Paris.

Putin’s Goal: Prove NATO’s Dead

After years of provoking Western powers, Vladimir Putin finally crossed someone who was willing to stand up to an increasingly imperialistic Russia when Turkey shot down a Russian jet that had violated its airspace. It is in many way fitting that the man with the strength to act was President Recep Erdogan who is emulating the Putin model at home. Facing term limits as Prime Minister, Erdogan shifted to the Presidency, which was previously a ceremonial role, and has been moving powers to that office. As such, he remains the de facto leader of the country as evidenced by the fact he, and not the PM, is the person Putin and President Obama interact with during this and other crises. As with Putin in Russia, in Turkey, the powers increasingly are endowed to the man not the office. Just as Putin has ramped nationalistic rhetoric the past decade to consolidate public opinion, Erdogan has let religion creep into a government that has been proudly secular to secure support. In Erdogan, Putin has a worthy and like-minded adversary.

While some of his actions have been unseemly, the fact is Erdogan is an ally in NATO with Turkey an indispensable nation in the Middle East that on balance is a positive influence. That raises the stakes of this incident severely, and a NATO power has not shot down a Russian plane since 1952. With Russian and American planes flying over limited airspace, the risk of accident or unintended escalation is great, and with our nuclear arsenals, the cost of a worst case scenario is unimaginable. Given the mutual defense clause (Article 5), a Turkey-Russia skirmish is equally dangerous.

Now, I do not ascribe to the view that this incident could be the precipice of a world war, despite the fact World War I was beget by a minor incident. Irrespective of constant underestimation by some on the left (who seem to have a real penchant for underestimating threats, mind you), Putin is not an oafish brute, seeking to use hard power everywhere. He is a strategic thinker who uses hard power only when necessary. A direct Turkish-Russian war is in no one’s interest. His goal is a different one entirely with long-lasting geopolitical implications: to prove what we secretly fear to be true, that NATO is dead.

NATO enlargement has been a key policy priority for years, and it is a wise policy assuming two conditions are met. First, the new country’s principles and policies are in-line with the organization’s goals and values (one does not typically allow enemies into an alliance). That condition has largely been met during enlargement, and if anything the former Soviet States who have been the focus of enlargement more forcefully support a united Europe than existing ones. Second, member nations must have the same willingness to provide for the common defense of new members as existing ones, for a failure to defend any nation would undermine the basic fabric of the alliance. If NATO members are unwilling to fight on behalf of Country X, they should not accept Country X into the alliance. This is the condition that Putin is wisely testing. Invading Turkish airspace is not intended to provoke Turkey; it is a test of NATO’s resolve. We must calibrate our response accordingly.

For months, Putin has been provoking the West from buzzing U.S. ships to sending submarines near Swedish waters. Since launching airstrikes in Syria, Russia has violated Turkish airspace several times, and after repeated warnings, Turkey shot down an unmanned drone last month. It must also be noted that the fact Russia is bombing near the Turkish border is your evidence he isn’t focused on defeating ISIS as they do not control that territory. He is bombing moderate rebels to help boost Assad’s grip on power. Putin does want to eradicate ISIS eventually as that’s required to help Assad, but his mission is to roll back all rebel groups and is currently focused on moderate rebels to ensure there is no credible alternative to Assad, or an Assad-like crony. Of course, some of these rebel groups, including the Turkmen, are supported by Turkey, only antagonizing Russian-Turkish relations further.

It is from this perspective that Erdogan’s decision to down a Russian jet must be viewed. Russia has ignored repeated warnings about entering your airspace and is killing the very rebel groups you have been helping. It’s an exasperating situation that can fairly be seen as an act of war. So when a Russian plane entered Turkey, even if it was for less than 30 seconds, Erdogan felt compelled and was entirely justified in acting. To be clear, Erdogan is completely in the right. That said, I think Erdogan likely made a strategic error here. It is one thing to shoot down an unmanned drone; it is another to shoot down a jet, which led to the death of the pilot and a marine. The fact the Russian plane appears to have been shot down over Syrian territory also makes the decision even more questionable.

If anything, this incident has given Putin cover to intensify bombing against the pro-Turkey rebels, and he will likely deter tourism (Turkey has a mock-Kremlin so many Russians visit it) and other joint economic projects. Shooting down a Russian jet also increases the tail-risk of the situation escalating beyond anyone’s controls.

Is a 17 second violation enough to merit being shot down? The slippery slope argument is powerful here, if not 17 seconds, is 1 minute enough, 5 minutes? Further, the history of appeasing strongmen in the hopes their thirst for expansion is satiated is disastrous, and a violation of airspace is a violation no matter how long it lasts. That said, my reaction given the brevity of the incident would have been to give Putin just one more mulligan, have scrambled jets but not shot, come out publicly with the information a Russian jet violated Turkish air space, publicly vow to shoot down any jet that enters the air space going forward, and proactively offer coordination to avoid a similar incident (an offer which Putin would likely ignore). Should a jet violate the airspace after Tuesday, I would then shoot it down without hesitation. This policy to me would not fall into the appeasement camp, but be a final proverbial warning shot that I would then act upon if necessary (unlike certain people who erase their red lines).

We are now in a dangerous situation, one Putin precisely wants to be in. What if he violates Turkish airspace again? Erdogan would have to act again, but does that just result in further escalation from Putin? We also know that Europe, France in particular, sees Putin as an essential partner in Syria. Thanks to years of dithering on our part, Putin has been able to insert Russia as an integral player in a political solution. He and Iran continue to prop Assad up, and unless we are willing to put in our ground troops and risk direct conflict, they will have to acquiesce to any political transition. Putin is using Syria to gain leverage in his real area of territorial ambitions: Europe. Therefore, our response to his aggression needs to be centered in Eastern Europe.

Putin is fully aware Europe wants him involved as a partner in the fight against ISIS, and as such, he has us over a barrel. While Europe seems willing to continue the existing sanctions against Russia over his invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, they are unlikely to support a significant ratcheting of pressure for fear that will preclude him from cooperating on the Assad question. Putin has the ability to keep provoking with little if any ramification. As such, he will continue poking to find the weak underbelly of NATO to exploit it.

In all likelihood, NATO members urged Erdogan to soften just as we urged France not to invoke Article 5 after Paris, which is shameful. Does anyone really think Italy is willing to face off with Russia over Turkey? NATO membership has devolved into a two-tier system: nations whom we would defend no matter what, and nations who we would defend depending on the aggressor. Now, Turkey is such a critical player in the Middle East, it may be a core member, but this flare-up will only serve to increase the tensions between the Russia hawks and doves in NATO. This could be a prelude to a stiffer test of NATO’s resolve.

Ultimately, there is no strategic reason for Putin to war with Turkey, but there are NATO members that should be worried. In particular, I have concerns about Estonia, which has a 25% Russian-speaking population; remember, Putin used supposed discrimination against Russian-speakers to explain his annexation of Crimea. He also exploited this population to foment an “internal” resistance in East Ukraine that has totally crippled the nation. Estonia is in the process of fencing its Russian border over this very fear. The appearance of an internal rebellion is preferable for Putin as it would make it easier for some NATO members to say Article 5 does not apply (it must be an external aggressor). With its large Russian population, Latvia too is a potential target.

Estonia is a country of 1 million, and Western Europe is uninterested in a direct confrontation with a nuclear power, especially given the pressing problems in Syria. Turkey was the first attack on NATO, and the Baltic States are the obvious next target. While these are small nations, their defense is critical. Once it appears Article 5 does not apply to a member, how can we know what members of NATO are really protected? By enlarging the alliance to nations we are unwilling to protect, we actually risk shrinking the alliance in the long-run. Sure, the U.S., Canada, Germany, France, UK, Poland and others are almost certainly core nations, but Eastern Europe should be petrified. How important are they? Are Germans willing to die for Slovenians should Putin go too far?

NATO is now an alliance without a cause and as a result is dying a slow death. What is its raison d’être now that the Soviet Union is gone? It has been wandering aimlessly without any core objectives; all the while, European armed forces have decayed and much of the continent is headed for economic and geopolitical irrelevance. Eastern Europe sees Putin for the threat he is, but the rest of Europe and current US leadership doesn’t see Putin as a mortal danger. We are minimizing (if not ridiculing) his aggressiveness as a result. We do so at our own peril.

Fracturing NATO and cracking the façade of a united Europe would be a dramatic diplomatic coup and undermine the security order of the world. Action in Estonia, if not responded to, would render NATO impotent and show the US, not only unwilling to enforce red lines, but unwilling to defend allies. That could have cascading ramifications across Eastern Europe and Asia where American allies like the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea face an increasingly adversarial and expansionist China. If they question U.S. commitment, we risk capitulations that could up-end the balance of power in that region.

This is what at stake. We are not on the precipice of a Turkey-Russia war (in all likelihood), but we face something equally dangerous. Putin is pushing around the edges of NATO to test how united we really are, and if we actually will honor our commitments. Proving that Article 5 is really more bark than bite for non-core nations could unravel the US-security compact that has kept the world safe, and we in its center, in favor of a world where the Russia-China-Iran axis gains strength and US reliability is questioned. The seeds have been sown for a second Cold War, if it has not already begun.

In response to the Turkish air invasion, we must make crystal clear that NATO support cannot be questioned. We have increased our military presence in the Baltics a bit, but NATO needs to move beyond a token presence. Announcing further deployments to Estonia and the Baltics in the wake of the Turkey incident would be a clear signal to Putin that he should not test NATO resolve. Simultaneously, we should commit to build the cancelled-missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, for which the Poles have clamored. This would apply a real cost to Putin’s actions. If you mess with a NATO country, it must be clear, we will work against your strategic objectives (dominion over Eastern Europe) and redouble commitment to member nations. Putin’s goal here is not to intimidate Turkey; it is to prepare for a grand pivot to Europe. Accordingly, NATO must pre-emptively harden its European positions.  Whether he is actually willing to call NATO’s bluff in the Baltics is uncertain, but we should pro-actively make clear NATO commitments aren’t a bluff to ward off any potential Russian intervention.

With the rise of ISIS, it should be Eastern Europe in a panic. Putin has built leverage over Europe in Syria and is now testing NATO. We must stand firm and signal our commitment to all member nations. Putin, like any thinking person, can see that NATO is divided with many members likely lacking the will to risk war with him over smaller, newer members. Destroying the illusion of NATO joint security and unwavering US commitment to its treaties would be the greatest political coup since Nixon opened relations with China. That is why we must come out now, in the wake of Turkey, and dispel these concerns, affirm all NATO nations stand firm, increase our presence in the Baltics to comfort these nations, and build the begged-for missile defense shield. Maintaining the balance of power not just in Europe but also in Asia requires this reaction and a steadfast commitment to all allies, big and small.

NATO is being tested in a way it hasn’t since the Cold War ended. We must prove it is an organization that has not outlived its usefulness. To do otherwise would undermine US leadership and the quarter-century of great power peace and prosperity it has bought us.

Post Paris: Ashamed of our President

NB:

In the days following the heartbreaking, cold-blooded terror attacks in Paris, I have opted not to post anything in this forum because my thoughts have been very harsh (I feared overly so). In times of strong emotion, one can say something they later regret, and I did not want to fall into this trap, stretch my arguments, or offer commentary I would later wish I hadn’t. Instead, I have pored over my words to be as precise as possible and ruminated over my thoughts so that I could articulate exactly as I feel without writing anything regrettable. I am saying this upfront because what follows is (for me at least) a very strongly-worded condemnation of not only our President’s policies but of our President himself as well. Personal attacks are quickly tiresome and rarely justified, and I attempt to avoid them. However after several days of thought, I have come to a clear conclusion: President Obama’s policies are making us less safe, likely because he has succumbed to delusion over fact, and he is undermining our moral authority on the world stage, which is the gravest of offensives. I am ashamed of our President, words I have never previously uttered—these words still feel foreign to me. Below are my views on these two points (the first is policy-driven, the second point houses my more severe criticisms for those who prefer to skip ahead); I hope you consider reading this worth your while, regardless of whether you agree with my conclusions.

  1. President Obama is in a State of Delusion

Friday marked a clear turning point in the war against the Islamic State (ISIS). First, it bombed a Russian airliner, then it perpetrated a massive suicide attack outside Beirut, and it culminated with the devastating, extremely well-planned, coordinated attack in Paris Friday night (additionally, on Tuesday, Germany was forced to cancel a soccer match and concert in Hannover due to “concrete evidence” of an impending attack). ISIS has morphed from a powerful conventional ground force into a terrorist organization with al-Qaeda-like capacity to launch terrorist attacks in the Western world. This is a deeply disturbing development that makes ISIS a clear and present danger to the United States and our European allies.

We can engage in counterfactuals all day to assign the blame of ISIS’s rise. Many on the Left say if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, ISIS would not be here, and there is some truth in that point (not that Saddam was a saint). On the right, we can point to the fact Obama pigheadedly refused to negotiate a status of force agreement to ensure a stable transition because he wanted to win the political points associated with a rapid withdrawal. Fair-minded individuals can see that a lot of people share the blame for the conditions that allowed ISIS to form. However, the blame clearly shifts to Obama as the question turns to gains ISIS has made in terms of its capabilities and territory, taking control of half of Syria and Iraq, a landmass larger than at least 13 states.

Yet while speaking at the G-20 summit on Monday (after the Paris attacks), President Obama reiterated, “We haven’t underestimated their abilities.” Well, I hate to see how dangerous ISIS could be if we had underestimated them. While being dismissed as a JV-team, ISIS was racking up conquests in Ramadi, Fallujah, and Mosul while we seemingly assumed they had the staying power of the pet rock. Yet, here we are 18+ months later, ISIS has barely lost territory, likely has tens of million (probably north of $100 million) in the bank, and has developed the ability to launch outward attacks of terror. We are left with two possibilities: the President is a bald-faced liar, pretending his strategy is working to avoid losing political standing, or alternatively, he is in a state of delusion. Neither option is a flattering one.

Considering the Administration is doctoring its own intelligence reports to better fit their narrative, reality be damned, I find myself in the delusion camp. A further sign of delusion is that the Administration seems hell-bent on continuing with the same, failing strategy (if Obama were lying to the public, I like to think he would change things behind the scenes). Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor, promises a mere “intensification” of the current strategy, comments Obama has since echoed. However, the underlying strategy is misguided.

Here is what Obama said hours before the Paris attacks: “Well, no, I don’t think they’re gaining strength. What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them.” It is truly stunning how badly Obama could misread ISIS to think we had contained them. Even if, simply for the sake of argument, we concede that ISIS has been territorially contained, that is not success—it is an undeniable failure. Iraq has been ravaged, and what remains is quickly descending into an Iranian-proxy state. Similarly, Assad is merely a puppet for Iran and Russia. The status quo makes it easier for Iran, with Russia by its side, to become the regional hegemon, controlling the capitals of Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria. That tilts the balance of power in the region decisively against us, and nuclear deal or not, it is impossible to label a Russia-Iran axis as friendly to democracy or our interests (I’ve written about this very issue weeks ago).

By definition, a policy of containment cedes its current territory to ISIS. In this territory, ISIS can train and build the capacity to launch outward attacks, for which it has just proven a stunning proficiency. Was the policy of “containing” al-Qaeda to Afghanistan particularly wise in the 1990s? Obviously, not. Controlling territory gave it free rein to plan and execute the 9/11 attack. Should it surprise anyone that giving ISIS the same set-up allowed it to execute attacks of its own? All the while, ISIS has built cash reserves, trained a revolving door of foreign fighters who have returned home to the West, and entrenched itself in its territory, ensuring removal will be costlier and bloodier than necessary. The policy of containment has been disastrous at every level. Obama has allowed Iran to gain influence, Assad to hang on, and ISIS to develop al-Qaeda-like capacity.

Not since Richard Nixon thought he could survive Watergate, has a President been so detached from reality. Nixon’s delusions put the nation in a constitutional crisis, and Obama’s threaten a security crisis. This crisis is even more acute for Europe, which has faced a tsunami of migrants entering without any vetting. Plus, its Schengen area policy of open borders has allowed these migrants to travel to any member state with minimal if any tracking, making it impossible for any government to know who is in their country at any given time. Each European nation is only as safe as the nation with the weakest borders, in this case Greece (austerity to deal with its budget debacle has crippled its ability to police borders and hold migrants). This migrant crisis, coupled with returned foreign fighters, exacerbates Europe’s security situation. Amazingly even though his own FBI director has expressed concerns about our vetting, Obama wants to accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees and has suggested anyone who opposes him is a bigot (I would note the presumed head of Senate Democrats, Chuck Schumer, happens to have reservations about the current system). Obama has avoided policy debate and simply attacked the character of those who oppose him on this issue. The rational decision is to suspend the program for 3 months, ensure all vetting is done to acceptable standards, and then if concerns are dealt with, reopen the program.

For 18 months, we have watched ISIS grow like a cancer as Obama underestimated them and then employed a wrongheaded policy of containment. He touts launching 8,000 airstrikes, though this amounts to ~20/day, less than 1/5 the pace of Bill Clinton’s strikes in Serbia. On Monday, Obama had the gall to say, “We have been fully aware of the potential capabilities of them carrying out a terrorist attack. That’s precisely why we have been mounting a very aggressive strategy to go after them.” That is indisputably untrue; our bombing campaign has been anything but aggressive. These strikes barely manage to slow the advance of ISIS but do nothing to roll back its capacity. Our President’s policies are that of an inveterate invertebrate. He fecklessly dithers, leaving us in a situation where there are no easy options. In 2013, we should have enforced a no-fly zone and aided the Free Syrian Army in their fight against Assad, but Obama backed away from his own red-line.

Now, Russia is propping up Assad, moderate rebels have been squeezed from both sides, and ISIS has a serious foothold. A full no-fly zone risks confrontation with Putin. Considering how Obama backed down to Assad and Putin in Crimea, it is hard to see Putin taking our no-fly zone seriously. The temptation to partner with him is tantalizing, put aside the Assad question now, deal with ISIS, and then work on Assad. Aligning with Putin is like sleeping with the devil, fun at first not so good in the long run. If we deal with ISIS together, there is no pressure for Putin to support removing Assad (except to replace him with another crony—any crony will do!).

Instead, the US must significantly intensify our airstrikes, encourage rather than discourage France to invoke Article 5 of NATO, and build a Western coalition to systematically roll back ISIS. This means directly arming the Kurds, whom we have long-standing relations with and who are adept fighters. US troops embedded with the Kurds and FSA, Gulf partners providing ground troops, and NATO air-strikes and some ground troops can decisively roll back ISIS. Simultaneously, we need to create safe zones where refugees can go in Syria and Jordan, financed by the West, to keep refugees from flooding Europe. We, both Western and Muslim states, then need to maintain a presence to help new governments in Iraq and Syria build the institutions and structural strength to endure. This is a battle among civilizations, and we need to treat it as such.

The idea containment would ever work is a pure fallacy, perpetrated by an administration unable to deal with ISIS and unwilling to admit its mistakes. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama continues to delude himself into believing the strategy is working. If we continue on this course, the threat ISIS poses to the Western world will only grow. I fear a world in which Paris is not an anomaly but the beginning of a long string of attacks, apparently we barely avoided another in Germany Tuesday. Simply containing ISIS allows them more time and space to develop their capabilities and export there terror. We need to get tough now; to do otherwise is to gamble the security of our homeland and that of our allies.

  1. President Obama Has Shamed this Nation

This (briefer) section pivots away from my policy critique and focuses instead on the character of our President. While I have never been a fan of his simplistic and pessimistic policy platform, I have long considered President Obama to be a good man and have defended him to fellow conservatives as such (at the expense of being dubbed a RINO occasionally). As his administration progressed, this has been a tougher argument to make, particularly after he blatantly lied about his healthcare plan (you can keep your doctor…). However, there is a difference between telling a lie and shaming the nation, or at the very least, there needs to be a very high standard when it comes to saying someone has shamed the nation (Nixon is the lone President whom I had previously put in this basket in the post-WWII era). Monday that changed.

While on the Sunday shows, Rhodes suggested Paris was a “setback.” People do misspeak or overstate their case, particularly on talk shows, and I aim to give all the benefit of the doubt, despite the callousness of that remark. Then on Monday, we were presented with dueling remarks from French President Hollande and Obama. Hollande powerfully declared to his nation: “France is at war. No barbarians will prevent us from living how we have decided to live. To live fully. Terrorism will never destroy the republic, because the republic will destroy terrorism.” Hollande understands the stakes of this battle. We are dealing with suicidal maniacs who want the world to burn, and we need to pulverize them. Hollande is seizing the gravity of this moment to eradicate a great evil from this earth.

Our President could not match this rhetoric. Instead, Obama doubled down on Rhodes line, saying, “The terrible events in Paris were a terrible and sickening setback.” Setback was not an off-the-cuff remark, it was clearly chosen in advance by our President to describe the Paris attack after being test-run by Rhodes Sunday. Our oldest ally has just suffered its worst terrorist attack since World War II, and that is all Obama has to offer. Families were destroyed, innocent civilians murdered, and children’s lives and sense of safety have been forever destroyed. This is not a mere setback; Friday we saw the face of evil. Even Orwellian newspeak cannot contemplate such emotionless verbiage.

Our President takes no issue calling his political opponents immature racists who are helping ISIS recruit (he did so earlier this evening!), yet he has no moral outrage to show psychopathic terrorists? Meanwhile, his Secretary of State suggests we shouldn’t be so shocked about the Charlie Hebdo shooting from earlier this year as though you make yourself a target merely by engaging in political discourse. That is anathema to the founding principles of this country, and the Western world.

Our President demeans fellow republicans with alarming ease but is incapable of calling out true evil on the world stage. Is he afraid of offending ISIS? There is no rationale for this cowardice. America is the world’s moral beacon, and as such, we have a responsibility, no a duty, to stand with allies and call out evil, yet we paper over a vicious action that has rocked France to its very core. In doing so, Obama is abdicating the moral authority of his office, and undermining our position in the world. We are seeing a stunning, virtually unprecedented, absence of leadership. How can we rally the world against evil when our President is all but unwilling to acknowledge its existence?

Obama’s remarks in the aftermath of Paris are unfathomable and show a moral compass gone haywire. The slaughtering of over 100 civilians is not a setback; that language is disgraceful, particularly when contrasted with the language he uses to demonize republicans. I shudder at a President who shrugs off allied civilian mass murders. We have a responsibility to lead the world, and Obama is throwing away our moral authority, which is particularly astonishing since he went on an apology tour over our supposed sins to restore it.

This is disgusting. Decency and a love for humanity demands anger, pain, and condemnation when discussing Paris or any terrorist attack. Hollande understands this; virtually all civilized people do. Yet, our President is so busy playing politics, he can see it as a mere setback in his strategy. Tell that to the families of the murdered.

President Obama has been disgraceful in the aftermath of these attacks, and I feel ashamed he is our representative to the world.

 

 

Ignoring History: The Lawlessness of Obama Executive Orders

On Tuesday, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act 91-3, leaving President Obama no choice but to sign it in lieu of suffering a humiliating veto override. Within the act, there is a provision banning the President from moving the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) into the United States or third countries, thereby blocking the President from fulfilling his wrongheaded campaign promise in a stunningly bipartisan fashion.

Not to be deterred by an act of Congress (he is only an inveterate invertebrate when dealing with real enemies like Russia and Iran after all), the White House has hinted the President may use executive powers to flout popular will and bring detainees into the US anyway. Some like Senator Dianne Feinstein and others are suggesting the President could have the authority to do this under his Constitutional Powers as our Commander-in-Chief. They argue the President has essentially unlimited powers over just about any tactical decision in war-time. Funny, precisely these arguments have been made before, only to be blasted in one of the most important Supreme Court decisions you probably haven’t heard about (more on that below!).

These current arguments calling for more power to be placed in the executive are particularly rich, coming in a week when a Federal Appeals Court upheld an injunction on Obama’s executive order rewriting our nation’s immigration laws. Now, the President is turning to the Supreme Court hoping for a more receptive hearing; however, the case in favor of his order is so dubious he spent years explaining how he couldn’t “fix” immigration laws by executive fiat.

One’s view of the constitutionality of his immigration order and potential GITMO one should transcend your view of whether they are wise policy. The core issue is exactly how much power is vested in each branch of government, not whether the underlying policy is well-intentioned. While questions of process often illicit droopy eyes, its importance cannot be understated. Our founders built an intricate system of checks and balances to carefully ward off tyranny, and upsets in this balance can have long-lasting implications. We can take for granted how much of a historical (and sadly even contemporary) anomaly the peaceful transition of power we enjoy every Inauguration day is.

I’m not saying we are on the verge of despotic rule; the issue here is cut and dry so there is no need to hyperbolize. Rather, it is about ensuring that powers remain at the proper branch to avoid the tyranny of one branch over another at the expense of public’s will. Allowing power to wrongly accumulate risks an incremental, creeping tyranny. For 85 years, we have seen more power coalesce around the Presidency, primarily at the expense of the legislature, a phenomenon that has happened under both parties’ watch, to the point where congressional law at times feel like mere guidelines for the President. Here on GITMO in particular, we have a congress asserting its right, but a President looking to ignore it anyway, the public’s opinion be damned.

In actuality (where I happen to live), this is not an unprecedented situation, rather there is a specific precedent that crystallizes the illegality of such an executive order. In 1950, Harry Truman was President, and we were waging war in the Korea Peninsula. Truman faced a steelworker’s strike, which would have disrupted the supply of arms to our forces. Truman saw keeping steel mills open as a matter of national security. Now, Congress had passed two laws, the Taft-Hartley Act and the Selective Service Act (its applicability in this case can be debated), which could have been used to keep the mills operating. Instead, he circumvented the will of Congress and unilaterally seized the plants to be run under the watchful eye of the Federal Government. Believe it or not, legal calamity ensued.

In a 6 to 3 decision in Youngstown v. Sawyer, the Court delivered one of the biggest pushbacks against a Presidential power grab in the century. Truman’s argument that his war powers granted him the ability to seize private property was found sorely wanting. In his concurring opinion (which is the opinion whose influence has endured time in this case), Justice Robert Jackson explained the three tiers of Presidential power (courtesy of Findlaw, emphasis mine):

  1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, [343 U.S. 579, 636] and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government [343 U.S. 579, 637] as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
  2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
  3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [343 U.S. 579, 638] the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

Essentially, Jackson believes the Court needs to view Presidential power in three ways. In the first situation when the President is acting thanks to an act of congress, he has the most authority (both his and Congress’s combined). In the second, Congress is silent, which could lead to a fuzzy gray area over whether it is Congressional or Presidential authority. This means the President is not due the same level of deference as when Congress acts alongside him. In the third situation, the President acts against an act of Congress (either clear or implied), so his power is at the lowest ebb because the Court needs to disable Congress’s ability to legislate in that area. As such, the Court would be ruling for the President and against the Congress, threatening the balance of powers.

Incidentally, the President’s immigration executive order falls squarely into the third category where he is trying to move directly against the intent of our immigration laws. As congress indisputably has the authority to write our immigration laws, the President’s power here is non-existent, and his executive order is blatantly lawless.

Now while Gitmo also clearly falls into the third category, it is a bit trickier constitutionally as the President definitely has more power when it comes to waging war than in domestic affairs, though this power is not absolute. In Youngstown, Jackson found Truman was in the third scenario as well—the parallel fortuitously continues. The Court did determine that Congressional laws dictating the process for dealing with strikes (that were totally ignored by Truman) were still relevant during war-time as the powers of the Commander-in-Chief are actually “cryptic” to quote Jackson contrary to what Obama’s cheering squad now suggests. Jackson goes on (emphasis mine):

He has no monopoly of “war powers,” whatever they are. While Congress cannot deprive the President of the command of the army and navy, only Congress can provide him an army or navy to command. It is also empowered to make rules for the “Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces,” by which it may to some unknown extent impinge upon even command functions.

This statement clearly goes against the pre-planned argument from Obama’s allies that Congress is meddling in tactical matters. That fact is not in and of itself problematic, particularly because we are dealing in part with an internal issue where the President would be bringing enemy combatants into the United States itself. Jackson eloquently notes the danger of letting a President use his foreign powers to assert additional powers within our borders (emphasis mine):

But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture….

 

This argument holds whether we are dealing with enemy combatants or steel plants. The idea our elected representatives would be powerless over what happens within our country is abhorrent to the very essence of democracy. Moreover, this line of attack doesn’t just come from our Courts, it is directly address by our founders themselves. Jackson again (emphasis mine if you hadn’t caught on by now):

That military powers of the Commander in Chief were not to supersede representative government of internal affairs seems obvious from the Constitution and from elementary American history. Time out of mind, and even now in many parts of the world, a military commander can seize private housing to shelter his troops. Not so, however, in the United States, for the Third Amendment says, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Thus, even in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by Congress.

Our founders went out of their way to expressly give our Congress legislative power in a tactical matter (housing soldiers) when it occurs on our soil. Ironically, many feel like the 3rd amendment is quaint if not anachronistic, serving no purpose in a modern society such as ours. They are wrong as the wider applicability is clear. The founders did not envision a President being able to take total power, Roman dictator style, during a time of war. They went out of their way to carve a role for Congress when the matters of war are internal in nature. How often in the course of human history have we seen dictators use foreign adventures as an excuse to tighten their grip back home? That is anathema to our carefully crafted constitution, ensuring democracy and balanced powers in peace and war time alike.

Given this reasoning, it isn’t hard to see that Congressional laws in that 1952 case were relevant and that Truman over-stepped. Was Truman attempting to become a dictator? Of course not; in totality, he was still one of our finer Presidents. This was merely a case where he reached too far in a time of war, and the Supreme Court took the opportunity to draw a clear line in the sand regarding Presidential power. By the same token, one doesn’t have to think Obama is a dictator to find his executive orders to be an overreach.

If there is any cogent argument differentiating a GITMO executive order from Truman’s in Youngstown v. Sawyer, I have yet to come across it. With Obama planning to sign the NDAA that has GITMO restrictions, any executive order would clearly fall in Jackson’s third scenario (contradiction with Congress’s intent) where Presidential authority is at its weakest. Bringing detainees into the United States proper is without a doubt an internal matter, giving Congress the constitutional power to legislate on the issue. That simple fact evaporates what legs that aspect of order stands on.

What about the aspect of the law that bans the President from sending detainees to Libya, Syria, or elsewhere? Does the fact the United States proper is not involved negate the specific “internal” Congressional powers implied by the 3rd amendment? In short, no. In 2008’s Boumediene v. Bush, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion makes clear the US has “de facto” sovereignty over GITMO, making the fundamental rights of the constitution applicable there. This ruling functionally makes GITMO “internal,” providing Congress with authority. In other words, Congress has the power to put restrictions on the closure of GITMO and transfer inmates anywhere, not just to the United States but to Libya and other third countries as well.

Looking at simple Supreme Court precedent underlines the sheer lawlessness of Obama’s plans. In Youngstown, Presidential powers are clearly delineated, and on both immigration (where Courts are already standing up) and GITMO (where an executive order may be in the works), his power is at its nadir. Plus, it now appears Democrats plan to argue that being in war gives a President absolute power (funny, it seems like just 8 years ago they argued the opposite), but this does not jive with our history or the obvious intent of our founders and is really an effort to stack powers inside an Imperial President. No matter your policy preference, this is dangerous as it takes power away from the power of the people’s representatives in Congress who are a necessary check. Our constitutional balance of power is a delicate one; we mustn’t unnecessarily tamper with it and risk breaking it for our next generation. Certainly not to score cheap political points.

Obama has been fond of shamelessly saying Republicans want a return to the 1950’s for women’s rights. Well, it appears in his zeal over studying 1950’s contraception policy, he skipped over that decade’s constitutional lessons. Ironic; he was a constitutional professor after all. Must’ve skipped those classes.