Ahead of Obama visit, Marco Rubio heads to Israel
As President Obama prepares for his first trip to Israel since assuming office, the man some hope will succeed him leaves Saturday for his own visit to the Jewish state.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and an oft-mentioned potential 2016 presidential candidate, departed for Israel and Jordan.
In a press release announcing his visit, Rubio said, "America's friendship with Israel is a truly special one, and we must continue to do all we can to support this beacon of democracy, religious freedom and free enterprise in the heart of an unstable region."
A trip to Israel has become an almost-obligatory rite of passage for potential Republican presidential aspirants, who can burnish their foreign policy bona fides by publicly embracing one of America's closest allies.
Rubio's visit comes on the heels of similar visits from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who are also thought to be eyeing 2016 bids. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney visited Israel last July, before the beginning of the 2012 general election campaign.
The trip can also provide a way for Republicans to draw a contrast with an administration they've accused of undermining Israel.
Mr. Obama last visited Israel as a candidate in July 2008 before formally accepting the Democratic nomination for president. Some Republicans have interpreted his absence since then as a snub.
Despite close security and intelligence cooperation between the Israel and American governments during Mr. Obama's tenure, the president has occasionally sparred with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a territory that would constitute the core of any future Palestinian state.
A senior U.S. official told Reuters last Tuesday that Mr. Obama will visit Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan in March.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 136 Comments
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado
- Former IRS chief: "I can't say" what led to IRS targeting
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 966 Comments
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
- Letter to a young scandalmonger
50 USC 1541 - Purpose and policy
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.
Now number 3 is the most important because the President could twist it around to say it qualified under this section. There's no set definition of this particular clause in any great detail
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread924349/pg1
Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced a bill in the House on Monday that would require congressional approval of any military action in Syria. Failure to obtain that permission would be an impeachable offense under Jones' bill, The Daily Caller reported. Whether it's election year politicking or a genuine attempt to preserve the congressional war prerogative is anyone's guess.
Obama isn't much different than other presidents. He has widely interpreted his role of commander-in-chief to allow him to conduct military engagements without congressional approval so long as he avoids an all-out war. All of Obama's immediate predecessors were equally guilty of doing exactly the same thing.
The Founding Fathers didn't intend for the chief executive to conduct undeclared wars, that is why they specifically gave Congress the right to declare war and fund the armed forces. But in a modern world, not every conflict is a war. Some are military engagements to avoid an all-out war. And let's be honest, presidents know how to press Congress into a corner when it comes to funding the military. Any congressman foolish enough to deny fighting men and women the equipment they need would be run out of office by the voters.
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Maybe a nice war with Iran. Or a few dozen F22 Jets. That would be great of him wouldnt it.
March 2? Rubio, Catholic and an Israel Firster?