Posted on 04/11/2017 6:31:29 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
By ordering last week’s Tomahawk strike on a Syrian airbase, the president usurped Congress’s exclusive power to declare war. He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
Make no mistake: President Trump’s airstrikes against Syria were unconstitutional. Military action may well have been justified from a moral standpoint. The Assad regime’s war on its own people and its use of chemical weapons required a response, arguably including a retaliatory strike to deter further such attacks. Inaction, as much as action, has profound human consequences. There is a case to be made that America should have taken military action against Assad in 2013, or even as early as 2011, in order to protect innocent Syrians from their own government.
The strikes may have been justified from a strategic standpoint, too — as a means of both advancing America’s interests in the region’s security and counteracting the perception of American weakness left by President Obama’s dithering response to past Syrian chemical-weapons attacks. A feckless, feeble United States — one that retreats from declared “red lines,” abandons the region to Vladimir Putin, creates a vacuum for the rise of ISIS, and generates a massive humanitarian and refugee crisis — is good for nobody.
But from a legal standpoint, there can be no doubt that Trump’s Tomahawk strike on the Syrian regime was a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Be sure and read the legislation that congress has passed to fight the war on terror...those are declarations
Or are looking to have Trump impeached? If so you belong over at DU
Well bless your heart
Clutch you pearls and sit in the corner
You ain’t supporting anything. You are listing drivel
So far no one has addressed 50 U.S.C. 1541 - 1548.
This 1973 piece of legislation, also known as the War Powers Resolution, requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing US Armed Forces to military action. It further limits the duration of that action to 60-days with a single 30 day extension.
Continued combat operations after that requires Congressional approval and/or a formal declaration of war.
IMHO since the missiles used had US markings on them they are “US Armed Forces.”
It would be nice if people did some research before they start making inflammatory statements about what is and is not legal.
50 USC § 1541 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, Purpose and policy
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
> Clinton bombed Serbia for 78 days without any declaration.
There are unsolved murders, so murder is ok.
Congress has to give approval for the ground troops that are there. They did under the war on terror declaration that has never been rescinded
I don’t recall you ever posting that obozo was violating the constitution.....even when he did
What?
That’s what you’re saying.
You seem to have made a great point and a big impression with this post! LOL
“We have both U. S. civilians and military personnel on the ground in Syria. Are you saying that they’re not at risk of a chemical attack.”
Well, I don’t know of any Americans actually hit by CW. Even if so, it would still not fit the Barbarian analogy.
The real questions are:
Why do we have those Americans in Syria if not for war?
-and-
Which Syria was candidate Trump talking about? Is it underneath the one President Trump is bombing?
“... the “debate” is beyond settled.”
-AlGore
Thank God, we have not suffered a single war casualty since WWII because words mean more than blood.
You apparently lack historical memory
Just out of curiosity what would you like done about it? As far as I know the only way to punish the president for violating the constitution is to impeach. Is that what you want?
If not then please sit down before you hurt yourself
NSPD-17 / HSPD 4 [unclassified version]:
National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction
December 2002
https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-17.html
Codified by Congress making its statutory law. Mostly still classified.
You’re an idiot.
Of course the article is total Bull Sheet. No responsible essay on this issue would discuss it without the specifics of the history of the War Powers Act — where it has been used and abused. He is tilting at straw men.
This is like the guy that finds every opportunity to talk about his pet snit— our Congress has been emasculated for 90 years, and he is hand wringing to make his points.
National Review used to be the home of good cirtiical thinking— this is childish.
How did you infer that? Does your bong go to 11?
Too late for VV to do that.
ZOT.
Not a single statute is referenced.
It is a strategy. The strategy calls on Congress “to consolidate and modify existing sanctions legislation”
Did the Bent One go to congress before taking out an aspirin factory?
You said “Clinton bombed Serbia for 78 days without any declaration”, implying that therefore this action by Trump is ok.
In other words, if one person gets away with a bad act then others can too.
In other words, since there are unsolved murders murder is ok.
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.