General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMadow is holding Obamas feet to the fire. WAR POWERS
Tomorrow it will be 60 days since the POTUS sent troops in to Iraq and that means the war powers act run out unless congress approves that he can continue on longer.
Is Obama purposely overstepping his limits.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What if he doesn't? Are Progressives going to start arguing for impeachment? I doubt it, especially when the senate hangs in the balance. The WPA is dead.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)So we can say you went too far/not far enough/acted too late/acted too quickly ... All while ignoring the body that is constitutionally responsible.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)And the Ambassador to Syria resigned because he could no longer justify American policy there.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/politics/obama-iraq-turning-point-political/
The hands-off approach in Syria even prompted the American ambassador to the country, Robert Ford, to resign recently because he could no longer defend the policy, he told CNN in June.
"Had there been more military assistance ... the opposition would have probably been able to gain ground a couple years ago more quickly," Ford said. " (And) the ability of al Qaeda and Islamist extremist groups to recruit away from the moderates would have been less."
And aside from the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, Ford said there is "nothing we can point to that has been very successful in our policy."
Ford and others have called ISIS a national security threat to the United States and fears are growing that its fighters could return to Europe or the United States and carry out terrorist attacks.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)and wouldn't to Syria either IMO.
How about not meddling in sovereign countries?
That's what we're telling Russia in Ukraine.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)If they object, don't they have voices?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)authorization isn't going to happen until they come back.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)What hes doing, its not an act of war, Turner said. Hes essentially coming to the defense of Iraq. Nobody recognizes ISIS as a state. Theyre not set up as a government, theyre just a band of terrorists.
Uses of force short of war have been carried out many times in this country without Congress being involved, he added.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/214896-legal-experts-obama-walks-fine-line-on-strikes#ixzz3AKH8EVMM
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Because it sure appears to me that he's violating his motto of "Don't Do Stupid Shit".
napi21
(45,806 posts)ON VACATION AGAIN! Surely she doesn't expect the congress to give up some of their vacation tie just to go back to DC to DO THEIR JOB?Fat chance THAT will happen!
rsmith6621
(6,942 posts)...it would be in the POTUS best interest if he challenged ORANGE TANMAN TO RETURN and vote. It would call their bluff on all of the cries for further engagement or it would show once again congress just cant get things done.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)Congress is not the only branch granted authority over war by the Constitution. The President is very clearly the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. In fact, it's arguable that the President holds the entire federal war authority except for the power to declare war. And even the power to declare war is just that - the power to declare war. The Founders very specifically narrowed this clause from "make" to "declare" because they recognized that a state of war can exist absent a declaration from Congress (e.g., invasion).
As for the War Powers Resolution, it is valid only to the extent that it does not attempt to alter the constitutional war authority of the President (a mere statute cannot amend the Constitution). It was only passed over the veto of Nixon, and every President (save perhaps Carter) viewed it as an unconstitutional power grab by Congress.
Finally, even assuming the War Powers Resolution is valid, it is simply a statute. Statutes and treaties ratified pursuant to Article II (President + 2/3s of the Senate) are equal and the earlier in time yields. So - if we signed such a defensive treaty with, say, Iraq, after the WPR was enacted, the President would be fully within the bounds of both statutes (as the WPR would yield to the treaty) to send in troops. And that assumes that the relevant provisions of the WPR are constitutional.
I think that anything short of invasion of the U.S. or an ally should require a vote from Congress. But the issue is not as simple as "Congress controls war" as Maddow essentially claimed.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Presidents dont have to get approval from anyone before they drone bomb, air strike, or send in troops anywhere. Where have you been for the past 12 years?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)The legal and political ramifications surrounding this are mind boggling. I've got no predictions.
moondust
(20,002 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm not convinced it's time to panic yet.
Hagel: Rescue Mission On Iraq's Mount Sinjar Less Likely
I guess the British are sending in some Chinooks and U.S. some Ospreys to ferry Yazidis to safety. They can't go home so probably refugee camps near Kurdistan.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)right on!
tritsofme
(17,396 posts)in Iraq. So any potential WPR clock would not include them.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Calling in air strikes. That is a front - line job.
tritsofme
(17,396 posts)Even if you argue that this action is subject to WPR, we can't have hit day 60 yet.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)tritsofme
(17,396 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)she should know better. She knows damn well about constitutional powers. Congress is on vacation. She really thinks Boehner is going to return to D.C. to aid Obama in anything? She really think he's going to be responsible and act?
Come on, Rachel! We're both political scientists but neither of us are immersed in this current political fiasco in D.C.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)same Congress that seems to threaten to sue the President every damn day over the way he chooses to wipe himself, for example. Yet, not a single peep out of them when it comes the use of military deployment and engagement, which is their CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION. They want plausible deniability, such that there won't be one drop of hypothetical blood on their hands if the shit hits the fan. A complete shirking of responsibility on their part.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I'll have to watch this episode to be sure. I podcast her, so I'll watch it later and revise my comments as appropriate.