President Obama has NO right to launch a military strike absent Congressional approval

[cali]

<snip>

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, a former Democratic Party chairman, said the Assad regime must be held accountable for its indiscriminate violence and "despicable" chemical attacks. But he urged that proper procedures are followed.

"Absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without congressional approval," Kaine said. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, has made a similar argument.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lawmakers-obama-syria-strikes-20080606

the AUMF doesn't authorize such a strike.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-15/opinions/39281705_1_aumf-congress-force-authorization

He has precedent, of course- as in we've done it before and gotten away with it so we can do it again, but that's pretty thin gruel.

President Obama was against this kind of executive action before he was for it. Ah, the imperial presidency which holds that it can bypass Congress on war powers.

[RevStPatrick]

1. Ha! That is SO 20th century!!!

EARLY 20th century!!!

(I happen to agree that the president should get congressional approval, but I'm nothing more than a mere "citizen" with little to no influence. He's gonna do what he's gonna do...)

[Coyotl]

2. Exactly. It is a violation of US law and treaties.

[leftynyc]

3. I'm perfectly content sitting back

and letting the Syrians kill eachother rather than getting involved in another pointless war in the mideast. Are you?

[cali]

7. I'm never "perfectly content" over the terrible costs of war wherever they happen

I don't believe the U.S. staging a military intervention will improve anything in Syria and may make things worse.

[leftynyc]

8. Will DEFINITELY make it worse

More Syrians will die, every crackpot jihadist in the area will flock to where they think they can kill Americans and scuds (or whatever the current equivalent is) will rain down on Israel (that part will be a wet dream for those here who think the whole mess in Syria is a mossad operation). Didn't mean to imply you are unfeeling about the loss of life but I certainly do see how you could have gotten that impression. Syria is a mess and we cannot help.

[Baclava]

4. Barack Obama's Q&A, 2007

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

[tkmorris]

5. Technically true, though you know it won't matter

The precedent for violating that particular principle was set a long while ago, and has been repeated multiple times.

[MNBrewer]

6. Bashar al Assad's regime poses absolutely no threat to the US

He is a dictator. That doesn't necessarily single him out among all the dictators of the world, however.

We don't know if, or by whom, any chemical weapons attack occurred. This rush to war is premature.

[leftynyc]

9. Chemical weapons were used

(according to Doctors Without Borders who I trust). But we have no idea which side used them. Both are morally bankrupt enough to be capable.

[MNBrewer]

10. They are reputable, but are physicians

I want to see the chemists weigh in on it. And, I agree that we don't know which side or faction used them if used.

[n2doc]

14. So? That in and of itself doesn't reflect a threat to the USA

There is no declared war. There is no way to deliver said chemicals to any US territory or state. Syria is absolutely no threat to the US.

Are we to go down the Iraq "WMD" route again?

[leftynyc]

22. Don't mistake me for someone

who thinks either side in Syria is worth fighting for. I'm fine leaving it for themselves or their neighbors to take care of. So feel free to take your "you're a warmonger" crap someplace else.

[n2doc]

23. Fine by me

Don't post ambiguous stuff about 'chemical weapons were used', and maybe you won't be misunderstood.

[leftynyc]

25. Nothing ambiguous

about Doctors Without Borders claiming neurotoxins were used:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release

You chose to extrapolate from that that I wanted war with Syria. You were wrong and now trying to backpedal. That's not my problem.

[Zorra]

11. I'm totally hoping that he has no such intention. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. You doubt he'll get it? n/t

[cali]

13. He's not going to go to Congress for a vote. He hasn't called for them

to return to do that.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. There is that. Not thinking yet today. n/t

[Progressive dog]

16. President Obama is the FIRST President

since the passage of the War Powers Act of 1971 (which restricts military engagements to 60 days without Congressional approval) to not claim that any restrictions are an unconstitutional infringement on presidential authority!!!! Those other Presidents include James Carter and William Clinton.
The AUMF has nothing to do with this.

[cali]

18. yeah. he just ignores it. no difference.

and no, the AUMF doesn't have anything to do with this. Hopefully it stays that way.

[Progressive dog]

26. President Obama has NOT ignored the War Powers Act!!!

Look up Libyan military action.

[trueblue2007]

17. i agree. pRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TO INCLUDE CONGRESS

NO MORE WAR....

MAKE THEM AGREE TO IT ALSO

[Cali_Democrat]

19. The President essentially has 90 days without Congressional authorization:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[cali]

21. fail, fail, giant fail.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

do tell where the fucking national emergency created by an attack upon the U.S., its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, is.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. And the President has 90 days to seek that authorization. n/t

[cali]

29. no, he does not. he only has authority to launch a military attack IF

there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

duh. stop making stuff up.

just stop.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Yes he does

It's right there if you take the time to read carefully.

[cali]

31. Funny how so many in Congress don't buy that.

No, he doesn't. that's ugly revisionist shit.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. Umm....actually it's not revisionist

It's written right there.

[DesMoinesDem]

20. That didn't stop Obama in Libya. He seems to have no problem conducting an illegal war.

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. This is less about Obama and more about the imperial presidency.

He's just the current occupant. But it is a disturbing trend. Of course, Congress has pretty much given its war-making powers to the presidency.

[kenny blankenship]

28. Oh Cali, that is the *first* part of the Constitution we started ignoring.

We passed that fork in the road ages ago, and the rest has been downhill from there. If we want to go back to honoring that first dishonored principle - that the people's representatives alone should decide when to involve us in war- the vast train of Constitutional infractions that followed it would have to be reversed as well.

[Kelvin Mace]

33. Laws are just words waiting for someone to change their meaning

People tell me that all the time.

Usually while the justify the unjustifiable.

[Agnosticsherbet]

34. The War Powers Act of 1973 does not require that. Tim Kaine should lead the fight to revoke

the War Powers Act. (It was passed over Nixon's veto, by Congress and is the law.) If he is not going to fight to repeal the act he should speak honestly and let his constituents know that Congress Fucked up in 1973 and it needs to be fixed.

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/what-exactly-is-the-war-powers-act-and-is-obama-really-violating-it

See also: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php