Last week, the British Parliament declined to support Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for joining a military action against Syria — an effort to punish the regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.
Afterwards, asked on the floor of the House of Commons to confirm that he would not use force against Syria under “royal prerogative,” Cameron assured his country that, despite his strong belief
in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons … I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that … the British Parliament reflecting the views of the British people does not want to see British military action. I get that. And the government will act accordingly.
How refreshing for a national legislative body to actually reflect the interests of the people, and for the government to abide by the will of the people. Perhaps this positive example from the Brits helped convince President Obama to seek congressional approval for the military strike he urges.
Process is important and, though Congress doesn’t do much of a job of representing us, I applauded the president’s decision.
Why the past tense? Because Time magazine reports that “Obama’s aides made clear that the President’s search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection.”
Yesterday on CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry said President Obama “has the right to do this no matter what Congress does.”
The Brits have authentic citizen-controlled government. Is ours just for show?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.