Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,079 posts)
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 07:38 PM Sep 2014

Boehner ready to punt on ISIS vote until 2015

Posted with permission.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/boehner-ready-punt-isis-vote-until-2015

Boehner ready to punt on ISIS vote until 2015
09/25/14 10:42 AM—Updated 09/25/14 10:52 AM
By Steve Benen


It was Aug. 8, seven weeks ago tomorrow, that President Obama launched U.S. airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq. It was this week when the president expanded the mission to include strikes on ISIS targets in Syria.

And it was last week when Congress decided to give itself another 54 days off, rather than extend legal authority to the Obama administration to conduct this military offensive.

Most of us have been working under the assumption that Congress had one of two options: (1) debate the use of force during Congress’ post-election, lame-duck session; or (2) return to work before the election to do its duty and meet its constitutional obligations.

But in a new interview with Carl Hulse, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) points to Door #3 – also known as See You Next Year.

Boehner is increasingly convinced that Congress must hold a full debate on granting President Obama the authority to use military force against terrorists…. But Mr. Boehner believes a post-election, lame-duck session is the wrong time for such a weighty decision.

“Doing this with a whole group of members who are on their way out the door, I don’t think that is the right way to handle this,” he said.

Mr. Boehner, who is open to a more expansive military campaign to destroy the Islamic State, thinks lawmakers should take up the issue after the new Congress convenes in January. At that time, he said, President Obama should come forward with a proposal for consideration.


Greg Sargent noted in response, “You have to love the idea that this is too ‘weighty’ a decision to make during the lame duck session, but not ‘weighty’ enough to vote on before the escalation actually launched, let alone before an election in which voters deserve to know where lawmakers stand on a matter of such great consequence.”

Indeed, it’s difficult to think of a defense for Boehner’s new posture.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but Americans elect members to specific terms, during which they’re expected to meet their obligations. The key word in “lame-duck session” is “session” – these elected federal lawmakers have jobs to do, and the fact that they’re nearing the end of their term doesn’t negate the fact that there’s important work to do.

Boehner makes it sound as if Congress is high school, and everyone can just coast for the last couple of weeks after final exams. That’s crazy – the United States is engaged in combat operations and the people’s elected representatives aren’t supposed to just take a pass on the crisis for the sake of convenience.

As for the notion that the White House “should come forward with a proposal,” I’d remind the Speaker that Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Waiting for the executive branch to write a draft resolution for the legislative branch isn’t a requirement – but Congress approving wars is.

As we talked about yesterday, Americans can take every Republican anti-Obama argument of late – about separation of powers, about co-equal branches of government, about the importance of institutional checks and balances – and throw them right out the window, confident in the knowledge that the GOP didn’t mean a word of it. For all the chatter about the president being an out-of-control, lawless tyrant, here’s an instance in which Obama really is acting without any congressional authority, only to find congressional leaders saying, “No big deal. We’ll think about doing something in a few months, maybe.”

Fair-minded observers can debate the propriety of the president’s actions, but for over two centuries, presidents have gone as far as Congress will let them. Especially in times of war, every Commander in Chief has sought as much power and authority as he can muster.

It’s up to Congress – filled with members who spent the summer complaining about Obama golfing instead of working – to meet its responsibilities. This Congress isn’t even going through the motions. Lawmakers aren’t even keeping up appearances. They’re not even trying.

I thought this Congress couldn’t get any worse. I stand corrected.


7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Boehner ready to punt on ISIS vote until 2015 (Original Post) babylonsister Sep 2014 OP
Curent authority is good for 60 days -- oldandhappy Sep 2014 #1
Congress should be ashamed of themselves. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #2
Boner reminds me of an orange glow worm! gopiscrap Sep 2014 #3
They should vote down this new war adventure in the ME immediately. former9thward Sep 2014 #4
They should have voted on it in the first place. bigwillq Sep 2014 #6
It's getting lost JustAnotherGen Sep 2014 #5
When the President said he didn't need congress, morningfog Sep 2014 #7

oldandhappy

(6,719 posts)
1. Curent authority is good for 60 days --
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 07:41 PM
Sep 2014

or have I misunderstood? What happens if we bomb bomb like crazy for 60 days and then stop??

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. Congress should be ashamed of themselves.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 07:47 PM
Sep 2014

They want to wait until next year to debate yet it is alright for our military to stand under fire in the protection of our nation. They are pathetic.

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
6. They should have voted on it in the first place.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 10:03 PM
Sep 2014

What a mess Congress and the President have created.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
7. When the President said he didn't need congress,
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 10:25 PM
Sep 2014

he gave them all the cover they needed. Obama explicitly said he didn't need their approval but welcomed their but in.

Why all the hemming now about a lack of congressional approval. Obama said he didn't need it and he acted without it. He made it clear they Congress's role is superfluous.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Boehner ready to punt on ...