116 House members say Obama needs approval from Congress on Syria

[cali]

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 O’Rourke (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]

1. That means 182 Democrats don't think he needs approval.

Lovely.

[cali]

2. No, it doesn't. It means they're sitting on the fence

they don't have much in the way of conviction, that's for sure.

[Gravitycollapse]

3. I expected more out of House Democrats.

18 is a sorry figure.

[cali]

6. I didn't. Alas. It is.

pretty revealing though about how partisanship trumps just about everything when it comes to this.

[elehhhhna]

8. It's called adbication.

They should give this an "up or down" vote (remember that argument?) or be fired

[Brickbat]

4. Happy to see mine on this list.

[Autumn]

5. I'm sad none of mine are on the list. But kudos to the ones that are.

rec

[Bigmack]

7. Just curious...

... 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]

12. I can tell you that all of the Oregon and California Reps listed in the OP voted No on the

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]

9. only 116 - where are the checks and balances

[cali]

10. Even worse is that only a handful are dems

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. what's with all this Hawkish stuff. I thought we were Democrats!

Has anyone spoken to Assad?

[Scootaloo]

17. I will never figure out where people get the idea that the Democratic party is dovish.

Many of its supporters are, of course, but the party itself has no such position.

[kelliekat44]

13. I think he should get it even if he doesn't need it. This clusterfuck should be tied to Congress as

well.

[Supersedeas]

14. looked who paid attention is elementary school civics class

[cali]

15. Where's Grayson?

Where is the rest of the Progressive Caucus?

[bvar22]

16. Take names and remember.

You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[cali]

18. hopefully more dems will sign on

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]

19. I hope more Dems DO sign on.

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]

20. Sadly, there is no equivalent of the UK Labour Party in the US.

[cali]

21. the letter:

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/