John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No

[SBu]

If Congress votes no to action in Syria, and President Obama goes ahead and bombs anyway, he may very well be the third President Impeached by the US House of Representatives, but more worrisome, is that he may actually be the FIRST US President to be Impeached and then actually convicted and removed from office by the US Senate sitting in Jury.

Read this article, then let me know if you agree:

John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No

A Constitutional Crisis, like no other, would ensue.

I don't think it would be so much of a constitutional crisis as much as it would be a political crisis. He would still have to come back to congress after 60 days, technically, and ask for continued support. Should he not do that, then I think you would have a better argument.

That being said, Congress could try to impeach him, I just think they would lose.

 

[Ockham]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

I would totally agree with you that military aggression causes wars. I was just saying it's not war until Congress says it's war.

<cringe>

I have to quibble over that statement. Officially Vietnam was a "police action" but we all know it was a war. In fact no military action taken since the declaration of WWII had a Congressional stamp of "war" on it yet we all know Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan ... were all wars. The President says its a war, Congress votes to approve or not but if Congress says no and the President goes ahead anyway, that doesn't make it any less of a war in any real sense especially to those who die fighting.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

I would totally agree with you that military aggression causes wars. I was just saying it's not war until Congress says it's war.

I'm really not all that worried about Syria. I just don't see that Russia can do anything and I don't see USA doing much unless Syria gassed Israel (which would be suicide). I'm actually bummed that we would back Al Qaeda, but I kind of look at it like a stickball game at the park. Russia got to pick first so we had to pick the fat kid in the back because he was the only one left. I think Russia and USA are just looking at Syria as a profit opportunity (weapons sales now and eventually rebuilding contracts). I don't think we really care about arab muslims.

Well if you were right about that, it should disqualify your support for military action there then. Unless your advocating we start killing people and breaking things because its good for business and we need a missile/bomb stock rotation.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Military action <> war in every case. Your definition is merely YOUR definition and not how the real world works. A war is when Congress approves a declaration of war. Otherwise it's merely a military action or armed conflict and at the POTUS discretion. What went profoundly wrong during your time in academia that your social studies teachers didn't cover these important details pertaining to the USC. When I was growing up in the late 60's the teachers spent quite a bit of time discussing Vietnam. Were you just not curious? That's OK if you weren't. I know there were probably some kids that were more into Barbie and Ken when the rest of us were playing with GI Joe.

You played with dolls? :notlook:

 

[Snappo]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Unless your advocating we start killing people and breaking things because its good for business and we need a missile/bomb stock rotation.

Like I said all along - I think everyone over there are bad guys. Either they are actual terrorists, or just the support group for the people that are the bad guys. I don't shed tears when arabs kill other arabs; but I would be upset if Americans died because of these military actions where we have no dog in the hunt. I much prefer how things were done in Desert Storm versus how things were done in Iraqi Freedom and the ongoing operations in Afghanistan. I am all for military manufacturers making lots of bombs and their employee all having secure jobs, and then bad people dying when the bombs get dropped. A peaceful planet seems to me to be mental masturbation - I think humans are a warring species and that I would rather be making the bombs than getting bombed.

 

[Snappo]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

<cringe>

I have to quibble over that statement.

Call your congressman. Tell him you think the Founding Fathers blew it with Article 1 Section 8 and you want to clarify what constitutes an act of war.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Like I said all along - I think everyone over there are bad guys. Either they are actual terrorists, or just the support group for the people that are the bad guys. I don't shed tears when arabs kill other arabs; but I would be upset if Americans died because of these military actions where we have no dog in the hunt. I much prefer how things were done in Desert Storm versus how things were done in Iraqi Freedom and the ongoing operations in Afghanistan. I am all for military manufacturers making lots of bombs and their employee all having secure jobs, and then bad people dying when the bombs get dropped. A peaceful planet seems to me to be mental masturbation - I think humans are a warring species and that I would rather be making the bombs than getting bombed.

Snap! I have no response for you on THAT.

 

[Born Free]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

He's asking for their approval, not permission. I don't know why he's even bothering, except for political reasons, since he clearly intends to go thru with it.

The people are against it and so is congress, and Obama doesn't have balls to do anything. If he had balls he would have bombed Syria the first time WMD was used. He drew the Red Line and backed off that. I didn't do it. What a jerk.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

That ignores the Constitutional Crisis I referred to.

If Obama had not gone to Congress, and Congress did not vote, the War Powers Act would have supremacy. However, once the President goes to Congress, and they vote, the US Constitution has supremacy via Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; ...

And make no mistake, bombing another country is an act of War.

So, once Congress votes, that's the last, conclusive and undeniable word. The law as prescribed in the Constitution, which is superior to all other laws. If that wasn't true, there would be no need for the SCOTUS to review laws for Constitutionality such the ACA, or Voting Rights Act, or...

In your opinion what has been the legality of the other 100+ military operations carried out under Presidential directive since the 18th Century without Congressional authorization? Have we just been doing it illegally all this time? The precedent of a President being able to authorize limited military action without prior Congressional approval is one that goes back almost to the birth of the Republic.

 

[apdst]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Candidly, I would be shocked if Obama did anything after a negative vote from Congress. The USC is very important to this man.

Obama's looking for an excuse to do nothing. He's praying for a no vote. Then, he can stand around and do what he does best: blame everyone else.

 

[danarhea]

If Congress votes no to action in Syria, and President Obama goes ahead and bombs anyway, he may very well be the third President Impeached by the US House of Representatives, but more worrisome, is that he may actually be the FIRST US President to be Impeached and then actually convicted and removed from office by the US Senate sitting in Jury.

Read this article, then let me know if you agree:

John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No

A Constitutional Crisis, like no other, would ensue.

No Constitutional crisis at all. It works like this:

1) Under the War Powers Act, Obama can bomb Syria, as long as he either stops within 60 days, or he asks Congress for permission to continue.

2) If Congress believes that Obama has abused the War Powers Act, it can impeach him and attempt to remove him from office.

So this is not a Constitutional crisis, since everything is spelled out. However, this is a crisis of Obama attempting to surpass Bush in doing stupid crap. And, since Obama is dumber than Bush, I believe he will succeed, unless the American people become more interested in what goes on in America than they are sitting on their asses and watching Dancing with the Stars.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Obama's looking for an excuse to do nothing. He's praying for a no vote. Then, he can stand around and do what he does best: blame everyone else.

Who really cares about all that if we avoid another military mishap and a possible showdown with other players.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Obama's looking for an excuse to do nothing. He's praying for a no vote. Then, he can stand around and do what he does best: blame everyone else.

He's already done that. Remember the red line?

 

[Cyrylek]

If Congress votes no to action in Syria, and President Obama goes ahead and bombs anyway, he may very well be the third President Impeached....

Just like Bill Clinton over Kosovo - after cheerfully ignoring three explicit congressional votes against. Oh, wait...that impeachment had nothing to do with any wars or votes...

I see two possible outcomes here. One: the Congress votes for or against, and the war begins, regardless. Nothing special happens to Obama, as a result. Two: The Congress votes against, and Obama pushes the "OFF" button. Second Nobel Peace Prize, I presume?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

That's BS. The WPR can be invoked for basically any reason. There is no requirement to prove imminent threat to the US itself. Further, Obama cited treaty enforcement - not the WPR -for his actions regarding Libya. Either of those excuses work just fine even after congress votes not to intervene.

The WPA is only if an imminent threat is happening, not because a President feels the need or desire to attack something.

And Treaty? with whom? Assad or the Rebels?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Silly assertion. He knows the USC applies to him, knows everything there is to know about the USC, and is doing what he thinks is best for the country. Everyone knew Obama and Romney when it was time to vote and they picked the guy. The complaints are just armchair quarterbacking by malcontents and it has to be viewed in that context.

No, the man does not know the Constitution, only how to pervert it. Same as Bush same as Clinton....none of them followed the Constitution except when it suited and furthered their agenda.

And you claim to be a Libertarian with a comment like that?

 

[Ockham]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Call your congressman. Tell him you think the Founding Fathers blew it with Article 1 Section 8 and you want to clarify what constitutes an act of war.

While it might seem black and white and simple to you, it's anything but. Article 2 Section 2 identifies the President is the Commander and Chief and can take action without congress to protect the nation. Reality is the United States has had many wars without Congress declaring such. Laws put in place which are used as excuses such as the War Powers Act complicate and ultimately muddy the waters of military action. What's obvious is the Founders got it right, and this country has been trying to find ways around the Constitution for a very long time. Back to my point which you did not address, no declaration of war since WWII yet reality is, the U.S. has been involved in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc... I reject the premise that Congress must declare war to be a war. If America didn't try to skirt the Constitution and followed it regardless of political party, we'd be better off and Vietnam and Korea may not have happened at all. Instead, Congress freely gives away their power to the Executive branch with regards to military action, squabbling instead over voting favors and "deals" so they can make a career instead of serving the public they are elected to represent.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

The WPA is only if an imminent threat is happening, not because a President feels the need or desire to attack something.

Even if we interpret the WPR so narrowly, there is still treaty enforcement.

And Treaty? with whom? Assad or the Rebels?

NATO, specifically France. You know, just like Obama did in Libya.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

A Constitutional Crisis, like no other, would ensue.

Just like they did when we went to Libya.

The GOP won't do jack. They want that power in the executive where it doesn't belong. They will piss and moan, but will make no attempt to make any sort of a substantive change to how things work.

Here we have Peter King saying that Obama's failure to go ahead and engage in warfare w/o consulting Congress is an "abdication."
Google

They won't do anything but bitch if Obama goes to war w/o a declaration of war.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I don't think it would be so much of a constitutional crisis as much as it would be a political crisis. He would still have to come back to congress after 60 days, technically, and ask for continued support. Should he not do that, then I think you would have a better argument.

That being said, Congress could try to impeach him, I just think they would lose.

I hope that he follows whatever the vote results are. And if not, that Impeachment is not on the table.

We are already divided enough in this country, and my reason for starting this thread was to describe and discuss how this could be a tragedy for our country on many levels.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

In your opinion what has been the legality of the other 100+ military operations carried out under Presidential directive since the 18th Century without Congressional authorization? Have we just been doing it illegally all this time? The precedent of a President being able to authorize limited military action without prior Congressional approval is one that goes back almost to the birth of the Republic.

I agree that the President has historically and by precedence has the authority to act without Congressional approval; and with the codification of the War Powers Act, he has guidelines to fall within.

My point in this thread is: Once Congress has voted, upon the specific request of the President, then the Constitution is preemptive to the Act.

 

[Beaudreaux]

No Constitutional crisis at all. It works like this:

1) Under the War Powers Act, Obama can bomb Syria, as long as he either stops within 60 days, or he asks Congress for permission to continue.

2) If Congress believes that Obama has abused the War Powers Act, it can impeach him and attempt to remove him from office.

So this is not a Constitutional crisis, since everything is spelled out. However, this is a crisis of Obama attempting to surpass Bush in doing stupid crap. And, since Obama is dumber than Bush, I believe he will succeed, unless the American people become more interested in what goes on in America than they are sitting on their asses and watching Dancing with the Stars.

My point is that once the President goes to Congress and requests Congressional approval, the vote taken in Congress supersedes the War Powers Act or any other law, given that the Constitution is supreme to any other law.

If Obama had not gone to Congress, then your two points are valid and I would totally agree. But, given that he has, the President has forfeited his ability to act within the War Powers Act and has subordinated his limited War Power under the War Powers Act, to the superior War Powers Clause in the US Constitution. Hence, the potential Constitutional Crisis, in that there MAY be fight to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution to the Act, and that fight may take the form of an Impeachment proceeding, and trial in the Senate.

I hope not. Our country doesn't need to go through that. But, IMHO, it is possible.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Just like they did when we went to Libya.

The GOP won't do jack. They want that power in the executive where it doesn't belong. They will piss and moan, but will make no attempt to make any sort of a substantive change to how things work.

Here we have Peter King saying that Obama's failure to go ahead and engage in warfare w/o consulting Congress is an "abdication."
Google

They won't do anything but bitch if Obama goes to war w/o a declaration of war.

I hope you're correct.

My concern here is that there is a dichotomy of opposition within both parties, unlike the polarization that usually exists on party lines.

This is a unique situation, that may have a unique reaction.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I hope you're correct.
My concern here is that there is a dichotomy of opposition within both parties, unlike the polarization that usually exists on party lines.
This is a unique situation, that may have a unique reaction.

I would have liked to have seen Obama impeached for Libya. I think that the WPA is too vague and needs to be well-defined. Iirc, the ScotUS has ruled that Congress is the appropriate place for making that kind of decision, and not the SCotUS.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I would have liked to have seen Obama impeached for Libya. I think that the WPA is too vague and needs to be well-defined. Iirc, the ScotUS has ruled that Congress is the appropriate place for making that kind of decision, and not the SCotUS.

And that's why I used the term Impeachment, which is where and how the Congress can act.