20 Lawmakers send letter to Obama

[Montecresto]

Dear Mr. President,
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,


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ll-to-obama-consult-us-before-striking-syria/

 

[Beaudreaux]

They have a point that the War Powers Act may in fact apply, due to it not being an emergency since we've known about the chemical attacks for months, and that there isn't a direct threat to the US. In fact, it could be argued that the direct threat to the US could come from us actually attacking, given what Russia has told the world they would do if we do attack.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

What makes them think that the emperor will give a flying rat's ass about the constitution?

He was allegedly a "constitutional scholar", so he should know this already, and he's wiped his ass with the constitution enough times to let us know he really doesn't care about our little piece of paper.

 

[Montecresto]

Well, that would be true. I only hope these law makers have the balls to raise some real hell, publicly and LOUD, forcing a national conversation. Louise Fisher, the 40 year veteran constitutional expert at the congressional library stated earlier, that the same action in Libya was an impeachable offence, and we have many scholars pointing out its violation to international law. To be legal, Obama needs a consensus at the security council and congressional approval at home. And that still doesn't make it right.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Was Biden among the 20? He was ready to impeach Bush if Iran was attacked without Congressional authorization. Maybe that is how he thinks he can get the job he has wanted.

 

[Montecresto]

Of course he's not among the 20, he's a politician, thus a hypocrite.

 

[MaggieD]

Dear Mr. President,
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,


Rigell to Obama: Consult us before striking Syria

When is the last time a President went to Congress before instituting an attack like this? Oh, that would be Bush in 2002 re Iraq. How'd that work out?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

 

[Montecresto]

It didn't work out very well at all. Nevertheless, its still the law. That's why I have made the point several times now that in order for military action in Syria to be legal, it requires a consensus at the security council and congressional approval at home. But all that still doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

[jonny5]

IMO, hes already violated it by moving military forces near Syria. But he did the same thing with Libya, didnt care about the law, and congress didnt care to do anything about it. And then the voters didnt care about any of it. Why would this time be any different?

CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

 

[jonny5]

When is the last time a President went to Congress before instituting an attack like this? Oh, that would be Bush in 2002 re Iraq. How'd that work out?

The consultation part worked out as designed.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Dear Mr. President,
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,


Rigell to Obama: Consult us before striking Syria

Congress really has no one else but themselves to blame - when a President exerts or claims unconstitutional powers, the congress should either be passing laws prohibiting it or taking the President to court, to the Supreme Court, to determine the legality of the President's actions and the legal advice he is given. The letter from legal counsel in the case of Libya should have been challenged in court in 2011 and to not do so is tacit approval.

 

[polgara]

Congress really has no one else but themselves to blame - when a President exerts or claims unconstitutional powers, the congress should either be passing laws prohibiting it or taking the President to court, to the Supreme Court, to determine the legality of the President's actions and the legal advice he is given. The letter from legal counsel in the case of Libya should have been challenged in court in 2011 and to not do so is tacit approval.

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

No one understands why the House seems to be permitting BHO to usurp their authority! We don't expect anything different from the Senate for obvious partisan reasons, but c'mon! BHO's own words in his "Dreams of My Father" tome explains why he is pushing the envelope to do what he feels like doing, but why is this allowed? Did a mass hypnosis take place? :thumbdown:

 

[CanadaJohn]

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

No one understands why the House seems to be permitting BHO to usurp their authority! We don't expect anything different from the Senate for obvious partisan reasons, but c'mon! BHO's own words in his "Dreams of My Father" tome explains why he is pushing the envelope to do what he feels like doing, but why is this allowed? Did a mass hypnosis take place? :thumbdown:

Good morning Lady P - hope all is well.

If you don't protect your right, it's no longer a right and the loss of that right becomes precident setting.

 

[jonny5]

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

No one understands why the House seems to be permitting BHO to usurp their authority! We don't expect anything different from the Senate for obvious partisan reasons, but c'mon! BHO's own words in his "Dreams of My Father" tome explains why he is pushing the envelope to do what he feels like doing, but why is this allowed? Did a mass hypnosis take place? :thumbdown:

Politics. If they do so the democrats will call them names including racist.

 

[Dooble]

Was Biden among the 20? He was ready to impeach Bush if Iran was attacked without Congressional authorization. Maybe that is how he thinks he can get the job he has wanted.

We're finished if Bazooka Mouth Biden ever gets the presidency. At least with Obama, you get lots of golf dates and family vacations, which means there's less time spent in the Oval Office finding ways for America to lose.

 

[tererun]

Dear Mr. President,
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,


Rigell to Obama: Consult us before striking Syria

I completely agree with that idea. However the idea that congress stands ready to do it's job is hilarious. There are only 2 decisions congress makes. One is to give bankers more money, and the other is to go on vacation.

 

[Montecresto]

I completely agree with that idea. However the idea that congress stands ready to do it's job is hilarious. There are only 2 decisions congress makes. One is to give bankers more money, and the other is to go on vacation.

Lol, I essentially agree as a whole, but I do believe there are those (these 20 included of course) that would like to do their job where this is concerned.

 

[jonny5]

FYI, the number is 116 now.

 

[Montecresto]

FYI, the number is 116 now.

Wow! Great, hopefully it continues to grow, thanks for that.

 

[Ikari]

Dear Mr. President,
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,


Rigell to Obama: Consult us before striking Syria

Should have sent this letter to Bush too. But thanks to Congress giving away its power over time, the President can do anything he wants, whenever he wants with our troops.

 

[jonny5]

Should have sent this letter to Bush too. But thanks to Congress giving away its power over time, the President can do anything he wants, whenever he wants with our troops.

Why would they send it to Bush?

 

[TiredOfLife]

Dear Mr. President,
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,


Rigell to Obama: Consult us before striking Syria

Now they wish to go back to declaring war? That was some nap, 70 years.

 

[Ikari]

Why would they send it to Bush?

To ask for authority before expanding legs of our War on Terror that has seen over a decade of military campaign and activity in the ME. Was it really necessary to ask?

 

[Ikari]

Now they wish to go back to declaring war? That was some nap, 70 years.

They should have to go back to declaring war. It's about time Congress starts to wake up and realize just how much of its power it has ceded away.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

They should have to go back to declaring war. It's about time Congress starts to wake up and realize just how much of its power it has ceded away.

Ya think???