Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama says he will make case for Syria attack on Tuesday from White House (229 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Under what grounds? (8+ / 0-)

    Congress allowed the President prerogative on this matter in 1973 but just forced consent be required for any sustained operation. Obama is legally correct that he could do this without Congressional Consent.

    •  He asked Congress for input . . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, killerfurball

      if he didn't want their oars in the water . . . he shouldn'ta opened his yap.

      Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

      by bobdevo on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 08:17:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True but he has pretty (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hawkseye

        Much already invoked the war powers act. He has 60 days from whenever he submitted his report to strike even without Congressional approval. Calls for impeachment are without legal grounds.

        •  Well, there is that matter of the assassination of (0+ / 0-)

          American citizens without due process. Some people might hold that to be a high crime or misdemeanor . . . and the warrantless electronic surveillance - each surveillance a Federal felony with 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

          Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

          by bobdevo on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:57:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  War Powers Act vs. Constitution (0+ / 0-)

      But the War Powers Act itself was a feeble post-Vietnam attempt to make up for the fact that presidents had taken to ignoring the Constitution, which requires a declaration of war by Congress.  Naturally, the attempt failed.  An optional (because of War Powers Act) "authorization" does not suffice to meet the constitutional requirement.

      The president always has the right to resist an attack before he has time to ask for war declaration so that is not the issue.

      Moreover, international law, to which we are signatories, does not allow nations to attack except in self-defense.  A declaration of war would satisfy the domestic constitutional requirement, but not international law.

      As for chemical weapons, the legal remedy is to take Assad to the International Criminal Court of Justice, as I understand it.

      •  They aren't in conflict exactly (0+ / 0-)

        The wording of the bill states it is clarification and an exercise of the elastic clause. Though you are correct in the ignoring part. The main point is it isn't grounds for impeachment.

        Syria does not recognize the ICC and thus he would have to be rounded up in a country that does.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site