Posted on 07/12/2019 3:29:08 PM PDT by ransomnote
Washington's actions were authorized by the Calling Forth Act and the Insurrection Act.
Lincoln's war on the Southern states was completely unjustified.
So no, I do not believe the President can make war on Americans on his own, either.
Well, if Iran plans "to destroy us", they had better pack a lunch.
And if the representatives of the People and the States don't see it your way (and they don't) - there's another election in sixteen months, and you can try to convince the People that fighting more wars for other countries is a good idea, but I don't think the votes are there.
Agreed! See tag.
What makes you think that I am for fighting more wars?
And the Senate will shoot down the bill. It contains a lot more toxic ideas, like forbidding to build the wall.
“I do not believe the President can make war on Americans on his own, either.”
Your belief did not stop Clinton at Waco.
LOL.
This reminds me of some leftist site (can’t remember which one) that tried a few weeks ago to suggest that Trump was out of control and pushing for war with Iran.
They really don’t know how to handle a President that isn’t a hawk.
That is untenable, if "take us to war" means what the House vote seeks to disallow, that of any military force against Iran. For in today's world a nation can engage in inflicting extensive crippling and possible fatal damage on the military assets of a nation, at least in its local area, before the House and the States even know it, less alone get together and convene. Or in the case of the USS Pueblo, now captive for over 40 years, an asset can be commandeered and the Presidents hands would be tied until Congress can get together to sanction attacks to recover it.
Rather, the President should be allowed to order immediate localized retaliatory air and or naval strikes in response to such (versus a planned pro-active attack such as the Gulf Wars) within a period of one or two hours, until Congress’s explicit approval is obtained.
And the Presidential authority to do so is given by the States by electing the Presidential as the chief executive.
Requiring such explicit Congressional approval before action can be taken against an aggressor actually fosters such attacks as Iran has engaged in, and her boasting of it.
On the other hand, allowing immediate localized retaliatory air and or naval strikes in response to such for in the space of one or two hours could result in "a shot heard round the world," initiating a larger conflict that could have been avoided, and which would compel Congress to sanction war, yet that risk may be better than standing by and allowing attacks until Congress can convene, debate, and vote on the issue.
And contrary to the non-binding hand-typing House vote, The War Powers Resolution federal law actually provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," before approval of Congress is obtained. And a military drone should qualify as a possession.
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 a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.
It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.
[I]n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."[6] Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.[7] It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90-day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.[8]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress in March 2011 that the administration did not need congressional authorization for its military intervention in Libya or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.[10][11] During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution's provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.[12] Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the sorties, and the New York Times reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions – a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.[13][14] The State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no "hostility" in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.[15][16][17]
May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[18] President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[19] since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO,[20] and since US involvement was somewhat "limited". In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.[21] By September, the US had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.[22] The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.[16][23]
On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[24][25] In The New York Times, an opinion piece by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman stated that Obama's position "lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years."[26]
Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military force in Syria, which Congress rejected. Instead, Congress passed a bill that specified that the Defense Secretary was authorized "...to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals..." The bill specifically prohibited the introduction of U.S. troops or other U.S. forces into hostilities.
In spite of the prohibition, President Obama, and later President Trump, introduced ground forces into Syria and the United States became fully engaged in the country, though these troops were primarily for training allied forces. On April 6, 2017, the United States launched 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor Stephen Vladeck has noted that the strike potentially violated the War Powers Resolution.[29]
Then there are the Questions regarding constitutionality
Excuse me, but all that legalistic gobbledegook misses the big picture.
War is a national effort. You cannot prevail with the USMC at war and the people at the mall.
Our constitutional Republic is made up of the People, who inhabit the States. Both of these (People and States) dictate national policy through Representatives in Congress assembled.
From LBJ through BHO, Presidents have tried to win wars with soldiers, sailors, and marines whose families, neighbors, and States don’t want them there.
Whether the President is “allowed” to do this is not the issue (although it is important in its own right). The issue is, can a national armed force drawn from this kind of Republic prevail in war and do what is necessary to gain victory (Germany, Japan) WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE ARE IN OPEN OPPOSITION.
My position is that it is the job of the Congress to authorize, and to direct, the President to make war. I recognize the existence of the other view. I myself concede that the President must respond, alone, to incoming ballistic missiles.
But even if I’m wrong - would the President alone people here send their sons to war on Presidential order, KNOWING that a Declaration of War is not sought BECAUSE Congress would refuse?
Yes, but not likely, and today most would be opposed to going to war with China even if they attacked Pearl Harbor and intended to do the same to the Philippines, etc.
My position is that it is the job of the Congress to authorize, and to direct, the President to make war.
Again, there is a distinction btwn disallowing any instances of air and or naval strikes against an Iran in retaliation for an attack on armed forces or its possessions, versus committing armed forces to continuous military action in a war footing.
Indeed, the Congress does not enact restrictions on Rules of Engagement. There is a fine line between war declaration powers and encroaching on the way such war or retaliation from attacks may be employed.
The other caveat is, what if Israel attacks? Why would then Trump be inclined to restrain them? To protect Iran? This is a veiled antiIsrael ruling pleasing the like of Nazi Tlaib or antisemtic islamoleftist AOC. That pubes would vote in their rank is disgusting
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.