Much ado about (probably) nothing

Daily Dish publisher Andrew Sullivan has bestowed a new title upon President Obama. Henceforth, by special decree, He shall be known as "King Barack I" throughout the enchanted kingdom known as America. While I'm on a roll, I shall generally refer to Hillary as Lady Clinton and Sullivan as Sir Sully.

Rearing on hind legs to better pound his keyboard, Sir Sully wrote:

"Hillary Clinton, channeling her inner Cheney, said in a classified Congressional briefing that her administration would simply ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that requires the president to seek Congressional approval within 60 days of the conflict starting. If the congress voted against continuing the war, it would be irrelevant to the administration. Beat that, King George II (pictured above). [...] The president is violating his constitutional duty to enforce the laws (to himself as well as anyone else). He has no constitutional right to simply waive the War Powers Resolution."

Channeling her "inner Cheney?" The Bard was right: "Man is a giddy thing." And aren't these words disrespectful the King, Sir Sully of Dish? Hey, you crowned him, not me. Seriously, I see Sir Sully's point and Lady Clinton was clumsy in her language - if that's what she actually said. But as Law & Order's Jack McCoy might say, Mr. Sullivan's understandable outrage, Your Honor, is based on hearsay evidence. For be it known that Sir Sully and his Round Table of like-minded Pundit-Dukes are sourcing Lady Clinton's words to a single TPM reporter who, in turn, gleaned them from a disgruntled congressman in the room. And no, I'm not calling this Politician-With-An-Obvious-Agenda a liar. Not at all. I believe that he believes that Lady Clinton believes that she (and by implication, Obama) is above the Constitution. Got all that? Good. But it is still hearsay. Oh, by the way, there's no transcript, either. On Law & Order, the judge would toss this case out by the second commercial break.

Second, King Barack I has remained mute on the subject, and his fiat is the only one that matters. Sir Sully's pseudo post hoc propter hoc argument is tortured. To wit: Hillary told Congress she will ignore them on Libya. Her Ladyship has the King's ear. Ergo, the King's silence means it is official royal policy. Sorry, old boy, that foxhound simply doesn't hunt. Third, Obama has already complied with the terms of the War Powers Act willingly. If Congress abruptly demanded an end to the war (which it won't do), Obama's past spirit of cooperation suggests he would not go all King George II on us and burn down the Capitol Building. His Grace is too smart to provoke such a needless constitutional showdown. Though our Imperial Highness might consider sending the Redcoats back into Concord, he would doubtless find a more kingly (and legal) way to obtain his ends.

Lastly, and most importantly, the onus is on Congress to assert its constitutional prerogatives, not Obama. As things stand, however, the Senate Lords and House Commoners are taking a pass - as they have on every similar occasion since 1973. That's a shame. Perhaps this feebleness is why Lady Clinton felt free to overstep decorum, if she did. Yet, if Her Ladyship said or implied what Sir Sully and the other Dukes of Detraction allege, then that's a shame, too.

But like the title of Shakespeare's famous comedy, this is probably "much ado about nothing." To paraphrase the character Leonato, the debate is "a kind of merry war" betwixt King Barack I and his excitable critics (who are sworn to argue for argument's sake). To the larger point Sir Sully never made (but should have), this episode should remind us that the nation is far better served when the equal branches of government behave as the Founders intended - without the royal flourishes.