"Surge" Without Congressional Approval Is Impeachable Offense

[Jcrowley]

"Surge" Without Congressional Approval Is Impeachable Offense

By Francis Boyle
Professor of international law at the University of Illinois

01/06/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- "Concerning the proposed 'surge' by the Bush administration of 20,000-plus U.S. troops into Iraq, this requires further authorization by the U.S. Congress under the terms of the War Powers Resolution. Section 4(a)(3) makes it quite clear that the War Powers Resolution is triggered ... 'In the absence of a declaration of war , in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced ... (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation....'

"We currently have about 140,000 troops in Iraq. Sending in an additional 20,000-plus would 'substantially enlarge' those forces. Therefore, the Bush administration would require further authorization from Congress for this euphemistic 'surge,' which is really a substantial escalation. Failure to obtain additional authorization from Congress for this substantial enlargement of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq would constitute an impeachable offense under the terms of the United States Constitution for violating the Constitution's War Powers Clause and Congress's own War Powers Resolution."

Francis Boyle, Professor of international law at the University of Illinois. Author of Destroying World Order: American Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16079.htm

[Richard Steele]

1. Impeachable offense? Add it to the list and move on.

[Critters2]

10. Exactly. After all, the leadership tell us it's off the table. nt

[theoldman]

2. I don't think I agree with this.

Once a war has started the president has a lot of leeway in what he/she does. Congress can cut the money but not much else.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. Do you want to quote the Constitution on that? Or are you just

blubbering? Proof?

[WiseButAngrySara]

13. Congress....

<11> To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
<12> To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
<13> To provide and maintain a navy;
<14> To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
<15> To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;
<16> To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
<17> To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
<18> To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[Saturday]

3. Francis Boyle, the author.....

is not a very reputable source IMO. But I hope I'm wrong.

[Critters2]

5. What makes you say so? nt

[Saturday]

8. I live in the state and know of him and .......

well, go check him out on google or Wikipedia, they can tell you better than I can. Like I say, I hope he's right.

[Critters2]

9. I'm surprised by some of what I just read

I know others on the UIUC Law faculty--Eric Freyfogle, George Bell, others--and they seem so level-headed in comparison.

Makes me go "Hmmm...".

[bridgit]

6. "'sir' (and i use the term loosely), i see your surge and raise you...

and impeachment"...sounds right to me :thumbsup:

[elehhhhna]

7. Better check the Signing Statement he att'd to the IWR.

Just saying.

[onenote]

12. this guy is a professor?

first of all, the War Powers Resolution doesn't require prior approval before the president commits forces, it requires him to "consult" with congress and to submit a written report to congress w/in 48 hours of committing forces and then congress has 60 days to either declare war or adopt a resolution authorizing the use of force.

Moreover, the scope of the IWR is such that it probably would cover the troop "surge" since it states that "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. Moreover, Congress has the power to terminate the use of force through a concurrent resolution

It can be reasonably argued that the two reasons given in the IWR are no longer operative -- Iraq isn't a continuing threat and the UN Security Council Resolutions are a moot point. However, it is unlikely in the extreme that Congress would seek to (or have the votes to) impeach the president if he relied on the IWR as the basis for the "surge". Indeed,before Congress would consider such a step it would almost have to first seek through a concurrent resolution to order the termination of the surge on the grounds that it wasn't authorized by the IWR and thus can be stopped by a simple concurrent resolution (per the War Powers Resolution).

[bridgit]

16. hm, if the president neither consults w/congress nor submits his report...

within 48hrs...does the president then stand, or sit, in breach? is there no 3rd option? say..."no mr. president, you have no plan/report. force is therefore not authorized, sorry." or must the congress either adopt some 1/2 baked plan via yet another cooked report, or declare war?

[onenote]

17. then congress can adopt a concurrent resolution forcing the troops deployment to end

As I understand the law...

[jody]

14. Boyle doesn't know what he is writing about. Congress gave * authority and probably

enough money to increase forces in Iraq for a limited time.

If congress passed a bill taking back that authority and funds then * would probably veto it.

Either 34 senators or 146 congresspersons could sustain the veto leaving * with authority and funds for a limited surge.

[MazeRat7]

15. In addition to what others have said... is "substantial" 15% ??? Define "substantial"...

Not sure who this prof is... but at first blush this argument is DOA where I am concerned mostly based on the points of others besides my own concern for the imprecise language.

MZr7