So when did our friends in the party that led us into Iraq decide this was a critical issue?
I agree. But War Powers Resolution aside, where is any domestic basis for Obama to unilaterally attack Syria? Unlike Libya, he doesn’t even have a UN resolution to rely on. I don’t see anything.
Short answer ‘yes’ with an ‘and’, long answer ‘no’ with a ‘but’
I suspect you’re right.
But if that’s the case, then we should all accept the fact that the War Powers Act is essentially toothless: any President will do what he thinks is the right thing to do with respect to the use of military, and a valid objection can’t be “It’s illegal under the War Powers Act.”
Agreed?
Terr, I suspect you’re wanting to punish Obama, rhetorically, at least, for the claim he made in 2007 being so far apart from his apparent position now.
And i don’t agree with that impulse. I do agree that Obama was wrong in 2007, but i think he’s right now. And I think we should make it “inexpensive,” for lack of a better word, for a politician to change his mind from wrong to right. That is, there’s little value in demanding he hew to a position that was wrong.
Right?
If pointing out the hypocrisy is “punishing rhetorically” then yes.
Does the constitution impose any limitations on the President’s war power? (Besides Congress defunding the war after he’s nuked half of the planet.)
It seems to me that the power granted to Congress to declare war needs to have some meaning that acts as a check to the President’s CIC power, otherwise, why is it listed?
Terr: Some of us are a little more interested in discussing the killing and suffering of our fellow human beings, and what we can and should do about it. But, if scoring a partisan Gotcha is what matters to you, perhaps we ought to just concede it and let you get on with your life, okay?
Yes. But you need to get into Supreme Court opinions and then deeper into OLC interpretation of those opinions to determine the extent of the President’s powers. As you can imagine, it’s extremely murky. You can find a constitutional basis to attack just about anyone. Protecting American interests is used as a constitutional basis to attack other countries about every time and its been stretched quite broad over the years. However, I just don’t see how it applies here. Nor any other executive “constitutional” basis.
Some of us are? Interesting. Can you show me one thread on SDMB that discusses Nigerian atrocities, for example, and whether we should intervene to stop them?
We could also point out the hypocrisy of only pointing out hypocrisy when it’s not your hypocrite being hypocritical. But where would that get us, save all twisted around in a loop?
Yes and no.
There have been lots of people over the years who suggest the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and more than a few who have suggested making a case out of it for the SC to eventually decide.
Thing is no one has gone there. Neither presidents nor congress has been willing to actually settle it at the Supreme Court.
Whether they like the ambiguity here or neither is sufficiently confident the case will be decided to their liking I do not know. In the end though this remains a distinctly gray area and one I doubt we will ever come to a firm conclusion on. I can see it argued either way.
On the one hand it seems a bit too much to allow one person to commit the country to some military adventure with no check on their decisions. The Founding Fathers liked checks and balances and getting the country into war and risking the lives of US citizens seems right at the top of the list of things that should have a check and balance on.
On the other hand the Founding Fathers said congress has the ability to declare war and certainly not every hostile situation the US could become involved in amounts to anything like a war. Should congress need to become involved and dither for weeks or months on whether we should have gone into, say, Grenada? It is absurd to think of our military so hamstrung that the president couldn’t react with needed speed to a given situation.
And of course there are a million shades of gray in all of this from Grenada to Iraq to Vietnam and so on.
Personally I am not sure where to come down on this. Perhaps the ambiguity is a good thing and allows the president to act decisively but if he gets it too far wrong congress will impeach or withhold funds or something. With no bright line it becomes a “I know it when I see it” thing for congress. The president has to show some restraint and caution but can still act.
Can you point us to the post in this thread where you have made an effort to discussed that? Perhaps this post:
Or would that be more along the lines of “scoring a partisan Gotcha”?
Thanks for providing another illustration, **John **- as if one were needed, which it weren’t.
We should all be mindful of **Bricker’**s excellent advice, that pointing out hypocrisy is an empty and vapid rhetorical device.
I didn’t say that.
Pointing out hypocrisy is a valid argument in certain circumstances. It may even be valid in this circumstance – but I argue here it’s not a wise tactical choice.
There is already a large sum of money the president has at his disposal. For example, he could easily launch nuclear weapons without any needed additional funding fromCongress. Therefore Congress’ ability to constrain the president from committing an act of war is nonexistent. You make it clear you have no personal problem with this. But your refusal to offer a reason why the power to “declare war” was specifically enumerated to Congress, speaks to the weakness of the constitutionality of your desired state of affairs.
If I were minded to point out some glaring hypocrisy on this issue, I might just find some in:
Any guesses who said that? Hint: the same guy that sent a letter to President Obama saying that Obama would be in violation of the War Powers Act if he didn’t either withdraw U.S. forces from the 2011 Libya mission or get authorization for the action from Congress.
Bricker offered one example re: Congressional Constraint. Another would be Congress can impeach the President. Those are two very solid constraints on the President’s power.
As for getting around the War Powers Resolution, I imagine Obama will use the same rationale that it doesn’t apply as he did during the Libya campaign - bombing doesn’t introduce armed forces into hostilities, thus the WPR is not triggered. Which is crap. He’ll still need his own legal justification, and it’ll be a combination of humanitarian/regional stability/protecting American interests basis. Also, very weak. However, weak legal arguments are better than saying no legal basis, but it’s the moral thing to do.
Well I’ve pointed out congress cannot constrain the president by means of controlling spending. No additional spending is needed to commit an act of war. On what grounds could congress impeach the president if the War Powers Act is deemed unconstitutional?