…or else you’ll get away with it.
It’s pointless for me to quote the Constitution about which branch of government has the authority to wage war and which branch prosecutes it. It’s pointless to remind everyone that the War Powers Act was designed to repel a direct threat to American national interest. It’s pointless to say that President Obama should be impeached for bypassing Congress in the Libyan invasion.
It’s pointless because Congress has no intention of defending the supreme law of the land.
President Obama is going to bypass Congress and invade Syria. He’s going to invade Syria alone, without an international coalition, because Cameron couldn’t convince his Legislature to approve intervention.
Nobody in Congress will dare challenge him. I will bet they fund the Syrian invasion, after Obama starts it, too.
Like it or not, President Obama can do anything he wants to do…and you can’t stop him…because your Representatives are too weak-willed to uphold their Oath of Office. So just sit down, shut up, and act patriotic. After all, they know what’s best for all of us
Comments 24
Brian,
You have hit on an issue that actually should scare more of the public than it does. The UNCHECKED power of the Presidency has been dramatically increasing since the time of Reagan and Iran-Contra. Since then, we have had Bush Sr. (First Iraq “War”), Clinton (Yugoslavia “War”), G.W. Bush (Afghanistan and Iraq “Wars”) and now the Obama’s “wars” in Libya and perhaps Syria and maybe even Iran. Congress has actually been shirking its Constitutional Duty to declare war since the end of WW II and that should scare more people.
Thank you Brian. A little “birdie” told me you had commented on this issue over here. If the President wants war have him pay for it from his own pocket and send his girls to fight it. As for me and my house we only fight battles when our own freedoms are at risk.
You make good points, Brian.
It’s interesting that of the following conflicts — Bush I’s Gulf War, Clinton’s Yugoslav War, Bush II’s Afghan and Iraq Wars, and Obama’s Libya War — the two Bushes got congressional votes authorizing the use of military force but Clinton acted over Congressional disapproval and Obama didn’t even bother to ask.
Dave,
This is not a partisan issue as Reagan also disobeyed Congressional mandates with Iran-Contra not to mention that “use of military force is not the same as a declaration of war and none of those “wars” should have been allowed to go on as long as they did without that declaration.
The issue is that the Constitution calls for checks and balances yet with each succeeding administration, there is less and less oversight of Presidential power. The really scary part is that half of the public is always cheering.
Your Invitation to Filner going away celebration – Syria-ously http://sdrostra.com/?p=35520
HQ, I don’t agree that a declaration of war is needed when Congress has already authorized the use of force in a particular situation. But fundamentally I agree that the issue is checks and balances and most importantly, that Congress is not doing its job to check the Presidency or the Bureaucracy.
Dave,
Is there any expiration date on “use of force?”
More importantly, this issue is too important to make partisan because if it is partisan, then I cheer when my guy is in office and you cheer when it is yours. All the while, we move further away from what was intended in the Constitution.
I called my Congressman’s office today (Peters). When I asked about Syria, I was told that he is working behind the scene with other Congressional leaders. Yea right. I asked if he was so concerned, why he hasn’t issued a press release calling for the return of Congress from this recess to discuss Syria. I guess that would show that he is questioning his party’s leadership. Yea, real leadership. Willing to talk tough but willing to do whatever your party tells you when things are tough. Gutless wonders are some members of Congress.
Poway Roger,
Peter’s Party leadership can’t call Congress back into session and I doubt Boehner would care what a freshman Democrat had to say.
HQ,
We agree on the checks and balances. While Dave I technically right, I think it’s time to bring back either: (a)- Congressional Declaration if War or (b) Letters of Marque and Reprisal
The WPA should be invoked only when “The Homeland” is threatened and immediately be followed by a petition of Congress
Hypocrisy, Peters is all talk and no action. If he is so concerned, as I stated, he could have at least issued a press release to make us think that he cared.
Anyone know the real reason that Peters cancelled his town hall meeting for today in Poway on short notice. I heard that he and his staff forgot it was Labor Day weekend. He and 22 staffers forgot to look at a calendar before scheduling the event?
Poway Roger,
Did Issa issue a press release? He actually might have got Boehner’s attention. Why aren’t you critical of him?
On the Declaration of War – it never went away. Congress just doesn’t put a fancy declaration of war preamble on a bill that authorizes and funds force. If military force is authorized and funded it IS a declaration of war. Its been a game of semantics to make it sound like politicians aren’t being hawks to a constituency that generally wants less wars than their political leaders. So if action is authorized and funded, you’ll know who voted for war.
I actually think Obama’s move to take It to Congress is to get him out of this. He created a red line and Syria called his bluff. Obama doesn’t want to get involved. He knows that he’ll get hammered for blunders (like Benghazi) and he has no upside for going. Seriously, if everything went well it won’t get him anything. So he wants to see if the GOP Congress that opposes anything he proposes will work to his favor this time and save face on an issue he got himself into.
The downside for us is that US credibility on chemical weapons is being sacrificed. Obama made the redline, now he wants out of it, and now dictator willing to use chemical weapons won’t feel deterred to do it. Battlefields are about to get messier.
I completely agree with Elliot’s point that there is no real distinction between a declaration of war and a congressional authorization to use force. Whatever distinction there is, it’s a distinction without a difference. I pretty much agree with everything Elliot said, actually.
“I completely agree with Elliot’s point that there is no real distinction between a declaration of war and a congressional authorization to use force”
I would have also, Dace. Mark Levin did an excellent job on the Mike Slater show, about 18 months ago, laying out the argument Elliot made …
…and then the Libyan invasion happened:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0624/House-sends-a-muddled-message-on-Libya-no-support-but-funding-untouched
By Elliot’s definition then, Congress affirmed the attack by funding the Libyan operation. Congress members are very nervous about not funding troops in the field so, when a President bypasses them, they are in a bind.
The lines are getting blurry
Brian,
The rhetoric was muddled but money talks. That was 2011 and they wanted to look like the opposed Obama but also support the troops. But the vote is what reality is not rhetoric. They voted for war and kept funding it.
But I see your point. A President can use public sentiment (like supporting troops in the field) or try to look tough on foreign policy or exploit election year politics to get Congress vote a certain way. So in a way the politicians are casting votes to keep their office and not necessarily for war (Hillary and Kerry in ’03 is a good example too). But really the vote is what matters and regardless of their motivations for voting they are voting for war if they opt to keep funding it.
Dave said it best: “Whatever distinction there is, it’s a distinction without a difference”
I want the distinction to make a difference and I certainly want any overseas action, which doesn’t defend the Homeland, to be subject to rigorous debate and deliberation.
Obama may be looking for an out. I don’t think there is much risk to voting against a Syrian invasion. If it passes, members of Congress might just propose invasions of the Central African Republic, Tanzania, and the DR Congo
Brian. agreed. America needs a distinction. The War Powers act basically allowed for short term military action at the President’s discretion. it was supposed to be for defense but it has been anything but.
It would be great if the War Powers Act had a “casualty clause” so it would only go into effect if America suffered casualties, Any other situation the President would have to go to Congress.
If this passes I’d be curious to see what the fallout is. There is pretty much bipartisan agreement on the street not to go in from what I can tell. The only people that want to go are NeoCon Hawks like McCain that want to invade and leftwing Humanitarians that want us to go in but would also be the first to criticize once we do.
Hypocrisy :
You are really a “winner.” I contacted Peters because he is my Congressman. Issa is not. Does that make any sense to you?
Will America ever stop getting into wars? I am really tired of us poking out nose in other peoples business. The Middle East is not worth one drop of American blood. Get out and stay out.
Get our oil here and forget those people even exist.
Protect our own borders from invasion.
I am pissed Faulkner only used English and spanish. What happened to French and German? How about Cajun? Oh that’s right, those folks learned to speak English.
Scot Peters…now there’s a joke!
Poway Roger,
Fair enough. He is my Congressman too, but when I want something, I generally contact all five Of San Diego’s Congressional representatives.
Hypocrisy:
As an idealist, I only contact the members that actual represent me. Of course I know that Boxer and Feinstein could care less for what I say, I do expect my Congress person to listen to what I have to say, even though he will more than likely vote against what I want just because Peters is just another rubber stamp for the democrat party.
So sad. I’m always hoping that whoever represents me will be a leader than a rubber stamp, but that rarely happens-republican or democrat.
Poway Roger,
I couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph. As to your first one, I am more of pragmatist – five is better than one.