General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums116 House members say Obama needs approval from Congress on Syria
Sadly, the vast majority are repubs. I'm proud to say that my good old rep is one of the dems.
More than 100 lawmakers, including 18 Democrats, have signed a letter that says President Obama would violate the Constitution by striking Syria without first getting authorization from Congress.
A total of 116 lawmakers had signed the letter as of 6 p.m. Wednesday, highlighting bipartisan interest and growing momentum in ensuring a role for Congress in any decision to use force in Syria.
Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution, states the letter, spearheaded by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.).
<snip>
The Democrats who have signed the letter so far are Reps. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Rush Holt (N.J.), Beto ORourke (Texas), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Kurt Schrader (Ore.), William Enyart (Ill.), Tim Walz (Minn.), Sam Farr (Calif.), Bruce Braley, (Iowa), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Michael Capuano (Mass.), Anna Eshoo (Calif.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Rick Nolan (Minn.), David Loebsack (La.), Jim Matheson (Utah) and Collin Peterson (Minn.).
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319127-55-house-members-say-obama-needs-approval-from-congress-in-syria-strikes#ixzz2dJSuCaKf
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Lovely.
cali
(114,904 posts)they don't have much in the way of conviction, that's for sure.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)18 is a sorry figure.
cali
(114,904 posts)pretty revealing though about how partisanship trumps just about everything when it comes to this.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)They should give this an "up or down" vote (remember that argument?) or be fired
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Autumn
(45,012 posts)rec
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)... where were those Repubs...hell, where were the Dems... during the lead-up to Iraq?
All of a sudden, the Repubs want Congress to act, instead of the President.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Iraq War Resolution and were noisy about it. So no 'all of a sudden' from the Democrats, thank you, what you see is consistency and regard for the law.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Has anyone spoken to Assad?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Many of its supporters are, of course, but the party itself has no such position.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)well.
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Where is the rest of the Progressive Caucus?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]
cali
(114,904 posts)it would make me sick if my rep weren't on board.
thankfully, I knew he'd be one of the dems before I saw his name.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I hope the wonderful reps from your state can join with the handful of other "Democrats" left in our Party, and spark some kind of revival.
I can remember a time when the things that Bernie Sanders says
would make him just another Democrat.
I miss that Democratic Party,
and am no longer sure that what is left is worth fighting for.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate and the active engagement of Congress prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.
Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in hostilities. In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:
President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration without prior congressional authorization.
We view the precedent this opinion sets, where national interest is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional. If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute hostilities, what does?
If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.
Sincerely,
<snip>
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/growing-bipartisan-coalition-urges-obama-to-seek-congressional-authorization-for-syrian-strike/