Soldier Takes Obama to Court Over War on ISIS

[CanadaJohn]

It may be a foolish question on my part, but if Article II of the US Constitution provides authority for the President to wage war even absent a Congressional declaration of war, how could a "resolution" that seems to limit the President's constitutional authority be constitutional itself?

 

[sangha]

It may be a foolish question on my part, but if Article II of the US Constitution provides authority for the President to wage war even absent a Congressional declaration of war, how could a "resolution" that seems to limit the President's constitutional authority be constitutional itself?

It's constitutionality has never been challenged. Therefore, it's constitutionality is debatable.

 

[Thoreau72]

That doesn't explain why Congress has failed to authorize military action.



That doesn't explain why Congress has failed to authorize military action.




That doesn't explain why Congress has failed to authorize military action.

Congress doesn't have the balls to exercise its power to declare war, for whatever reason that might be. If it wants to authorize military action, it should do as it did back in December 1941

George Bush began the Unitary Executive, and Barack loves him for it.

 

[Thoreau72]

It may be a foolish question on my part, but if Article II of the US Constitution provides authority for the President to wage war even absent a Congressional declaration of war, how could a "resolution" that seems to limit the President's constitutional authority be constitutional itself?

Not a foolish question at all.

We must consider the situation when it was written. Congress took some time to assemble because people had to ride horses, basically, to get there. So the Executive was designated as empowered to do with the military as was needed in case of sudden emergency.

Then, when congress could be assembled, they could deal with the crisis.

Makes sense to me.

The WPA made it clear that the executive had to keep the legislative informed about the situation. Captain Smith is correct that the executive is not complying with WPA, and neither is congress for saying nothing about it.

 

[jet57]

And the congress, notwithstanding all the republican tough talk, is too scared to declare war on ISIS

Who is it scared of? I think it's US. We're tired and demanded an end to Iraq.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Not a foolish question at all.

We must consider the situation when it was written. Congress took some time to assemble because people had to ride horses, basically, to get there. So the Executive was designated as empowered to do with the military as was needed in case of sudden emergency.

Then, when congress could be assembled, they could deal with the crisis.

Makes sense to me.

The WPA made it clear that the executive had to keep the legislative informed about the situation. Captain Smith is correct that the executive is not complying with WPA, and neither is congress for saying nothing about it.

Thanks for that - we sometimes forget today, when everything is instantly available and accessible, that it wasn't so back in the 1700s

 

[Removable Mind]

yes, i understand that to neoconservatives, every problem is Hitler, and everyone who opposes repeating policies that won't work is Chamberlain. in the really real world, though, it's a bit more nuanced.

anyway, though, since we're talking internet tough, how much should your taxes go up to fund the latest round of Middle Eastern interventionism? what should Saudi Arabia contribute? what's your plan to get them to do that?

Another funding of MEI, added to what's already been spent - maybe all total - will have costs the US so much that had they invested the same amount in building security directly around the US, I opine that it would stop the second coming of Christ within the borders of the US.

 

[Thoreau72]

Thanks for that - we sometimes forget today, when everything is instantly available and accessible, that it wasn't so back in the 1700s

My bet is that the court will show its complicity and corruption and rule against Captain Smith's suit. Some Yoo-ish sophistry will be presented.

And in a related matter, the chaplain Christopher John Antal has now tendered his resignation from the Army. Two young officers have now taken a moral stand against the War On Terror.

Should I be joyful that 2 have taken such a stand, or disappointed that only 2 could make the stand?

 

[sangha]

Not a foolish question at all.

We must consider the situation when it was written. Congress took some time to assemble because people had to ride horses, basically, to get there. So the Executive was designated as empowered to do with the military as was needed in case of sudden emergency.

Then, when congress could be assembled, they could deal with the crisis.

Makes sense to me.

The WPA made it clear that the executive had to keep the legislative informed about the situation. Captain Smith is correct that the executive is not complying with WPA, and neither is congress for saying nothing about it.

My understanding is different. At the time of the Constitutions adoption, there was no standing army and the Framers were opposed to the formation of a standing army. Therefore, while POTUS had the authority as CIC to order the military around, he was inhibited by the fact that there was no military to order. In order for the CIC's authority to be realized, Congress would first have to authorize and fund a military which presumably would only be done in the face of some security threat

 

[Thoreau72]

Totally agree Sangha!

 

[PirateMk1]

If you don't like the way our Constitution is set up? Act to amend it.

Meanwhile, do not use MILITARY force to address this problem because MILITARY forces work under the laws of land warfare. This causes more problems than it solves as exemplified in the Middle East today.

If you want to fight organizations that are not "national," then use organizations that are as covert as your enemy is. Allow the CIA to do it job outside the USA and the FBI and State law enforcement to do their jobs inside the USA.

Congress can also issue letters of mark and reprisal, which are for just this sort of thing. Basically we send out the privateers to go collect enemy heads and steal their money. Not widely used anymore, apparently its uncivilized, but considering the enemy, might not be bad idea to bring back the practice. The privateers can go everywhere don't dare.

 

[Thoreau72]

Congress can also issue letters of mark and reprisal, which are for just this sort of thing. Basically we send out the privateers to go collect enemy heads and steal their money. Not widely used anymore, apparently its uncivilized, but considering the enemy, might not be bad idea to bring back the practice. The privateers can go everywhere don't dare.

I would say that it is widely used today, though the formality of Congressional issuance of such instruments is no longer used, just as we no longer declare war anymore, we just wage it all over the world, many times by remote controlled viewing drones.

After all, Eric Prince and Black Water (Xe), Triple Canopy, and a very long list of other mercenary groups do just what you describe, but it's all done in relative secrecy. No Congressional Letters.