Obama doesn't need Congress to intervene in Syria

[dipsydoodle]

US President Barack Obama has the authority to launch air strikes against Syria. But he has to notify lawmakers in Congress -- a process which Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday has begun.

"The administration is actively consulting with members of Congress, and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead," Kerry said in a strongly-worded statement on Syria.

A spokesman for the Republican speaker of the House Of Representatives John Boehner however said those conversations had not yet begun.

In 1973, after the Vietnam War and despite the opposition of Richard Nixon in the White House, the US Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to compel US presidents to seek congressional approval in order to deploy soldiers.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130826/obama-doesnt-need-congress-intervene-syria

Be interesting to see how the vote goes.

Spokesman: House Speaker Boehner told White House he must consult Congress before any action on Syria; must have clearly defined objectives - @Reuters (corrected)

http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGKqN1xMM/2013/08/26/spokesman-house-speaker-boehner-told-obama-he-mus

[Catherina]

1. Such weasels, he doesn't need to "consult" members ofCongress. He needs their authorization PERIOD.

We all know he's not going to which is why Elliot Engel was all over TV this weekend saying Obama can do what he wants to do and then he can get *assent* at a later date.

The War Powers Resolution is very short and extremely simple. It takes a deliberate attempt to misinterpret it

USC › Title 50 › Chapter 33 › § 1541

50 USC § 1541 - Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541

Justin Amash ‏@repjustinamash 24 Aug

2 reasons R & D leaders don't want vote on #Syria: 1.Opens door to debate on floors of House & Senate. 2.Puts Members of Congress on record.

Justin Amash ‏@repjustinamash 24 Aug

Airstrikes are act of war. Constitution demands Pres get specific auth, not just "consult" Congress, before commencing nondefensive strikes.

[KharmaTrain]

2. Try Again...The War Powers Act Of 1973...

...give the President authority to launch military actions for up to 60 days before he/she gets Congressional authorization:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/world/how-war-powers-act-works.html

The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.

Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.

The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.

This is how Raygun launched his foray into Grenada, Poppy Bush into Panama and Clinton in Kosovo...

[David Krout]

6. Can you clarify the "imminent hostilities" part?

Imminent attack against US or imminent war between the people of other nations?

[KharmaTrain]

7. The Marvels Of Governmentspeak...

...it can and has been interpreted many ways by different Presidents since this act was passed. To Ronnie Raygun, he felt that Cubans in Grenada and the ensuing violence following the government overthrow was the "imminent hostilities" to send the Marines storming ashore. Or there's Poppy bush who felt Panama and Noriega offered enough of a threat. Clinton had Bosnia and then Kosovo and I won't get into the messes dubya got us into. Point is the wording of the resolution is so vague it can and has been interpreted and applied in many ways to suit the needs of the executive. The congress does have a right to "start the clock" and demand the use of force cease but that's after 90 days...plenty of time to lob missiles, launch drones and try to take out a perceived threat or enemy.

I don't condone any attack and would prefer other means to stop Assad from gassing his own people, however if the U.S. is part of a coalition and it just happens to knock Assad out of power, I won't be shedding too many tears...

[David Krout]

8. You focused on how other Presidents have interpreted the law, but I asked you what the law says

Can you tell me what the law in question say about hostilities?

Once you've typed it, I will ask you if this applies to the Syrian case.

Other DU'ers reading our discussion will be invited to state whether they think the Syrian situation is the kind of hostility mentioned in the law.

[razorman]

4. This all sounds so familiar. Didn't we go through this same argument a few years ago,

with another president?

[msongs]

3. yes, he can resign, grab his gear and go "over there" any time he wants nt

[David Krout]

5. Congressmen for war don't want a vote

They don't wanna be on record.