The Slog: During the 2008 campaign, Barack 'baby bomber' Obama declared, “The President does
not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorise a
military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual
or imminent threat to the nation.”
This would be hugely reassuring were it not for the fact that he did
precisely this in Libya, and was (apparently) only held back from Syrian
gung-hoing by the British Parliamentary ‘no’ vote, plus a rapidly
unravelling story about Assad’s “use” of chemical weapons.But then again, Constitutions appear at times to be not so much moveable feasts as Meals on Wheels. Here, for example, is the gist of a Bill going through Parliament at the moment (my italics):
Tagged onto the end of this Bill – as if it might be a vague afterthought – is a set of clauses designed to, effectively, remove any right by the residents of Buck Palace to play even the tiniest ceremonial role in the passage of British laws.
This isn’t that big a deal; it’s just that I can’t recall seeing it discussed anywhere in the lame stream media.







