Back off. This sort of attempt at a taunt is not necessary.
[ /Moderating ]
So you admit that this bill does not authorize the use of force, nor could it possibly be construed to authorize the use of force.
Why? You’ve already admitted that Paul didn’t block a bill that would have brought about WW3 by authorizing the use of force.
Oh wait, you’re still prattling on about ‘clarity’ when you freely admit that the language is perfectly clear in not authorizing the use of force. How could I have guessed that?
He is not talking about the difference between Qaida and Qaeda, which is a matter of preference when transliterating from Arabic to English.
He is talking about your repeated insertion of the letter “u” into the word when that is not an issue of transliteration but of habitual keystrokes.
at bolded
That was not in the question I answered.
As others pointed out, it is not out of realm of possibilities for POTUS to use it as some sort of justification for avoiding going to Congress for a explicit authorization.
No, it’s an issue of transliteration.
Qu, like in al-Quds, is closest to a “ku” sound, but briefer as I’ve transliterated it. Al-Qa’ida, for instance, is an acceptable transliteration and close to the sound, and more importantly the aspiration, I’m approximating with English.
In any case, it’s more than a bit odd that that’s the bit you chose to comment on, especially since the mention of Al-Qa’ida (if you prefer) was brought up because people had claimed that Iran was in danger of US attack and I pointed out that despite attacking US military targets with malice aforethought and despite collaboration with Al-Qa’ida, the US did not respond militarily. Spoke still has had no actual response to that, and has instead resorted to variations on “ooh, scary!”
I’d think that salient detail was more important than the proper transliteration of a plosive from Arabic to English, no?
If you’re referring to the repeal of the Tonkin Resolution, then yes, it does. Appropriations bills contained explicit authorization for monies to be spent in the Vietnam War. cite
The repeal was, as I said, a cynical appeal to the voters. Congress authorized the war in 1964. It then proceeded to fund billions upon billions of dollars to pay for said war up until 1973, two years after it ‘repealed’ its authorization. All Congress would have had to do to end the war in Vietnam with or without repeal is to stop funding the war. By repealing the resolution they could pander to their constituents about how they were in touch with them about ending the war, yet by continuing to explicitly authorize funds to be spent prosecuting said war they made the repeal a moot point as they were continuing to authorize said war, thus pandering to voters still in favor of the war. Again, it’s hard to claim that you’ve removed authorization for a war when you continued to authorize billions of dollars in funds to be spent in the war.
Wrong. It is the question you answered; you just don’t like that fact. I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Spoke: Outside of hysterics, how could this bill possibly be misconstrued to authorize force when nowhere in it does it contain language authorizing the use of force?
I understand the hypocrisy of funding a war you claim to be against. I use that same argument many, many times because it’s true.
My point here is different, and not addressed by your cite; does an appropriations bill explicitly authorize a war. And I mean the actual words, “this bill authorizes this war;” it’s an actual authorization to do something. Another way to ask would be, could you actually start a war with an appropriations bill? Or does it just give an inference you are continuing to authorize (i.e. support) it from a previous actual authorization. I don’t think it explicitly authorizes a war, but that’s just a guess. Very generally, Congress works in two steps: (1) Pass bill to Authorize X. This is just a general let’s agree to do X. However, X will not occur without money. So, (2) pass bill to Appropriate money to actually do what you’ve authorized.
However, once you repeal the authorization, why should X still be considered authorized for the President to continue doing? It can only if you infer it from other sources…e.g., an appropriations bill that’s funding the repealed X. Now Congress has cornered themselves where they need 75% approval to undue every single trace of evidence (every bill that can be construed to authorize/support a war) to completely stop an inference that Congress is still agreeing to the authorization (even though they have already repealed the actual authorization). It makes it too damn hard to stop a war. I just see this clause Paul wants to not let the Sanctions bill be a trace of an inference of agreeing to a war. I agree logically it’s not necessary, but logic is right out the window once a war starts and lawyers go looking for ways to keep it going/justifying it.
And it’s not just appropriating money; it can be other pieces of legislation, say, implementing the draft can be construed to authorize something even when that something has been repealed.
Those are all good questions, but really there is no answer. Courts simply will not get involved in war powers issues to give precise answers to those, and other, questions, because war powers are viewed as “political questions” between the executive and legislative branches, with no role for judicial oversight. As a consequence, each branch more or less is allowed to do whatever it can get away with; and what each branch can get away with changes over time. The Ford Administration was very weak and Congress passed the War Powers Act to limit the ability of a President to engage in protracted military action without an authorization, but then President Clinton prosecuted the Kosovo War for just shy of three months without any authorization whatsoever. There were lots of questions at the time as to what would happen if the war continued past 90 days in violation of the War Powers Act.
One of the few specific answers that can be provided is that the War Powers Act specifically prohibits things like the appropriation of funds to be inferred to authorize war. Any valid congressional authorization for war must quote the War Powers Act: in effect, a kind of “Simon Says” rule as to whether Congress means to authorize force or not.
Which is precisely the reason clarity is a good idea. You’re right; courts aren’t going to allow litigation of these issues, so if a President does say “Hey, Congress says it doesn’t want Iran to have nukes! Send the bombers!” no court is going to stop him. The only way to put the brakes on a President is to have very clear language in the bill saying that force is not authorized. A court still probably isn’t going to touch it if the President goes to war anyway, but if a President violates a clear Congressional prohibition it looks very bad politically. Hell, you might even be able to hang an impeachment on it.
No, no, no, no, no! How many times must this be repeated? Paul’s amendment does not provide clarity, it provides nothing. Zero. Zip. It does nothing, it has no legal significance, it is completely and utterly meaningless. The only thing is does is force additional votes in the Senate and delay passage of sanctions on Iran.
Paul’s amendment states that nothing in the sanctions bill authorizes the use of force. Nothing in the bill already authorizes the use of force. There is no gray area here: as I’ve said half a dozen times, including in the post right before yours, that Congress has to use a specific phrase in order to authorize the use of force, a requirement imposed by the War Powers Act. Those words do not appear in the sanctions bill, therefore there is no issue.
What’s more, Paul’s meaningless amendment only purports to apply to one bill. It does not attempt to be a blanket prohibition on any attack on Iran. Even if it tried to be a complete and total legal prohibition on an attack on Iran (which it is not!), such a prohibition would be unprecedented and almost certainly totally unconstitutional. The Congress cannot take away a constitutional duty of the President to defend the country against an imminent threat, if one were to exist.
Now, Iran is not an imminent threat. I am clearly opposed to bombing Iran at this point and with what we know today. However, if at some point in the future, we discover through our spies that Iran actually has a nuclear weapon that is about to be launched at the United States, a legal prohibition on attacking Iran is legally useless because the presidential duty to defend the United States against a threat that leaves no time for deliberation is ingrained in the Constitution itself, and no law can take that power away from the President… even though I think it is dangerous and reckless to actually attack Iran at any time in the reasonably foreseeable future.
What we need are sane presidents who are not reckless and trigger-happy. Obama is doing a good job in that right now, and Paul’s efforts to stop and delay sanctions are an impediment to the peaceful resolution of this issue.
I agree there is only one way to Congressionally Authorize a war (well, outside of a declaration); and this bill does not do it. But what about using legislation to keep a war going after it’s been properly authorized and repealed (see my previous post). Do you also think it’s impossible for a President to use a sanctions bill as justification to keep a war going? (e.g., I need to keep this naval blockade to stop X cargo from entering/leaving Iran per Congress’s sanctions bill which still continues to prohibits it.) I personally don’t think so, but I’ve seen strained arguments easily fly.
That would cure just about everything.
While I doubt the words “this bill authorizes this war” appear on DoD appropriations bills passed by Congress, there is nothing inferred in the bill. Funds were explicitly authorized for the purpose of conducting the war in Vietnam. I can’t find a FY1972 or 1973 budget online, but here is some of the language from H.R. 2346
That’s just a part of it, the word ‘Afghanistan’ appears 60 times and ‘Iraq’ 35 times should you wish to look up where and how other funds are to be spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and can keep from nodding off reading all the verbosity and legalese. Congress wasn’t just authorizing the DoD X amount of money to spend as it saw fit, it was explicitly authorizing funds for the DoD to pay for conducting military operations in Vietnam. Again, it’s hard to take seriously that Congress de-authorized the war when they continued to authorize billions of dollars explicitly to be spent fighting said war.
It certainly is. I’m still waiting for you to show where it is unclear in any way whatsoever that the bill doesn’t authorize military action or declare war on Iran, since it’s perfectly clear that it does no such thing.
I’m not aware of any time at which a war was concluded and then hostilities were continued under the vague auspices of sanctions, so we don’t have any case studies to examine. However, in the age where the War Powers Act exists, Congress would be on very strong terms to object to the continuation of the war. However, like all disputes on war powers, the real way to stop a war is to cut off funding. But there is at least one example of Congress cutting off funding but the President continuing in spite of that law, which was the Iran-Contra Affair. How Reagan got away with such a blatant and inexcusable violation of law is beyond me.
Now, war as defined by the War Powers Act is generally the introduction of troops into a situation where hostilities are imminently expected. A naval blockade would probably cross that threshold in most circumstances, but perhaps not all, regardless of the trite expressions to the effect that a blockade is indistinguishable from war. Personally, I know what a war is, and I know what a blockade is, and they can be different things.
I agree generally with everything you say. And thanks for digging out an appropriations bill we can see; they are long and boring to read through.
I think we’re switching definitions of the word authorization (I know I have in my previous posts). There’s the magic word/“simon says” authorization, as Ravenman has pointed out. And then there’s the general definition of the word as in, authorizes, allows, supports, ect.
So I agree that an appropriations bills generally authorizes something (in your cite the Iraq and Afghanistan/GWOT war). It authorizes/supports it, not by the magic language, but by appropriating money to fund the war. To me, that’s a (strong) inference Congress supports/allows the war and wants it to continue even if they’ve repealed the separate magic language authorization bill. However, that should not be the case. Congress should be able to stop a war by repealing the same bill that started it.
This is what the WPR Congress was so afraid of and clearly addressed in previously cited, SEC. 8. (a): Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities…shall not be inferred…from any provision of law…including any provision contained in any appropriation Act…[unless it says the magic words]. This section addresses Paul’s clause on point, but I don’t have faith in the WPR.
Anyways, I think a good thread would be on how does Congress end a war without resorting to cutting off funding (which just seems so hard to do because it appears so wrong to not give money to “support our troops already in harms way”, ect ect). What was the last war that Congress actually ended? It always seems to be on the President’s terms.
Examples of Middle Eastern nations’ plans for green energy production:
Looks like a general trend. Good for them. Nuclear energy would work well with those plans.