Skip to comments.Rand Paul resolution: Obama violates Constitution if he attacks Syria without Congressís approval
Posted on 09/04/2013 1:24:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I don’t know if there’s a way for Rand Paul to force Reid to bring this to the floor, but if not, Boehner must — must — include it in the House package.
It’s three paragraphs long so go ahead and read it in full, but this part deserves spotlighting:
Using his own words against him is zestily delicious, but c’mon — you don’t think a gauzy concept like “imminence” is going to stop him, do you? According to O’s drone policy, a bad guy in Al Qaeda is always an “imminent” threat to the U.S. no matter where he is or what he’s doing. He’ll make the same argument about Assad: “Anyone crazy enough to use poison gas is, by definition, an imminent threat.” There will, needless to say, be lots of Clintonian parsing later by Democrats even if something like this passes. Isn’t there always?
But never mind that. Until this morning, I thought the whole point of O going to Congress was that he did want them to have veto power over a Syria strike. That’s his escape hatch from the “red line” nonsense. If they approve an attack, then this is no longer exclusively Obama’s folly. If they reject it, then he gets to drop the Syria hot potato on grounds that his hands are tied and whatever parade of horribles follows in Syria is Congress’s fault. To ask them for authorization, have it denied, and attack anyway would be inexplicable; it would provoke a constitutional crisis needlessly, given that O could have followed his Libya blueprint and attacked first before consulting Congress later. But now that he’s talking about “the world’s red line,” not his own, maybe he thinks he has some sort of international duty — we’ll call it, per his Secretary of State, the “global test” — to enforce the taboo against WMD even if America’s legislature votes no. And let’s be honest: Given the years-long trends in his presidency towards interventionism and executive power grabs, that would be a logical move for him to make. He ignored Congress, as well as his own lawyers, to attack Libya. He refused to enforce ObamaCare’s employer mandate despite it being statutorily required and doesn’t even pretend he has legal authority to do so. What’s left except to declare war unilaterally, with the people’s representatives formally in opposition (and the people themselves heavily opposed)?
If Paul can get Congress to agree that an attack after a no vote would be unconstitutional, that might make things sufficiently politically uncomfortable for O that he’ll have to stand down even if he doesn’t want to. It’ll be a constitutional crisis either way, but having both chambers specify in advance that this is egregiously illegal puts extra pressure on him not to act. Which makes me wonder if he’s counting on a House/Senate split on this. He can probably get to 60 in the Senate with most Democrats voting yes and a handful of GOP hawks joining them. If the vote fails in the House, then he’ll simply say oh well, Congress is gridlocked again, which leaves him no choice but to resolve this stalemate with executive action. (His quote on the employer mandate: “[W]here Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.”) The vote to watch, then, may be the one in the Senate, not the House. If he can get 51 there, which seems likely, then he can claim he had a majority of one chamber at least. If he can’t, things get more difficult for him. Surely there are 51 Democratic hacks willing to swallow hard and protect what’s left of the president’s credibility, no?
That ship already sailed ... to Libya.
Youtube with Biden warning President GW not to start military action against Iran without approval from Congress. If GW did, Biden promised to start impeachment proceedings.
One might ask Joe, Why not now Joe, if your Obozoliar bombs Syria? Oh, sorry I forgot: IOKIYAD (It’s OK If You’re A Democrat).
So! “At this point what does it matter?”
Can anyone honestly, and that’s the key word, honestly say this government is operating with any constitutional restrictions.
Congress is going to give obama the black man anything he wants.......get ready this, not going to end well.
Yep-- if Congress says no then Bammy is lawless.
why do we need a resolution to tell us this?
RE: why do we need a resolution to tell us this?
Because our legislators are so busy “defending” the constitution that they don’t have time to read it.
Going to Congress is about one thing, political cover for the Messiah, who finally figured out just how unpopular his dumb "red line" policy is.
That said, there is no way he will attack Syria if he loses the vote. It would be politically disastrous for Barry and the Dim Party.
Except that congress has at some point agreed that we were at war with Al Qaeda. They have never yet agreed that we are at war with Syria.
He ignored Congress, as well as his own lawyers, to attack Libya.
He got away with it because no one wanted to come out in favor of Khadaffi, and because there isn't a dime's worth of testicular fortitude in the entirety of the US Congress.
As commander in chief he has the responsibility to act when the danger is clear and present and there is no time to go to congress. If the action is optional, which he has agreed that it is, he is after all just planning to spank them a little, not too much to actually affect any outcome on the ground (so he says) then there is plenty of time to go to congress. Or at the very least, call in the old gray heads and get their assent.
And if, as it turns out, the chemical weapons were triggered by O's own favorite jihadists, what then? Does he plan to drop a cruise missile into their midst? Or is the spanking reserved only for Al Qaeda's enemies? And congress is seriously supposed to sign off on this? Are America's soldiers supposed to work to the benefit of the people who brought down the Twin Towers?
but if not, Boehner must must include it in the House package.
Don’t hold your breath. He’s a surrender monkey.
So then, The War Powers Act no longer applies? Of course not, it doesn't apply in the Syrian civil war, nor did it apply in Libya. There is/was NO "eminent" threat to national security from either country. But Bambi got away with bombing Libya while citing the Act. Bet he does so again.
In the meantime, big "O" will talk the Syrians to death. I have never heard so much Blather and BS in my life. Oh, and screw the Russians and the camel they rode in on, too.
Obama violates the constitution 4 or 5 times a day before lunch.
Biden is tied up in a basement somewhere.
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.