Does Obama have the Authority

[RetiredGySgt]

Does Obama have the authority to attack Syria without Congressional authority?

Assuming the action takes more then 90 days.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets see how many Liberals are willing to answer this question.

 

[BreezeWood]

Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution


(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

yes (interpretation), and if a concurrent resolution includes both houses of Congress after 90 days it could go on infinitum ... ^ ^ according to the war powers resolution but maybe not SCOTUS.

 

[katzeundratze00]

Does Obama have the authority to attack Syria without Congressional authority?

Assuming the action takes more then 90 days.

Und der Katze sagt:

He puts troops in for 90 days, goes to Congress and says, "Well, there they are. Are you going to support the troops, or leave them hanging out to dry?" It would be political suicide for Congress to say no.

 

[occupied]

Apparently. If he didn't why did the republicans not impeach him? Or Clinton for that matter? Congress's decision not to act is the same as allowing it. Write your congressman and demand they impeach him for what happened to poor old Khadafi.

 

[occupied]

There is also the distinct possibility that the government of Syria will accept the inevitable offer of exile and not a shot fired, in light of recent events in Libya I would say it was a strong possibility.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does Obama have the authority to attack Syria without Congressional authority?

Assuming the action takes more then 90 days.

We’ll never know as the courts refuse to address the issue and Congress has abdicated its Constitutional authority to the Executive to declare war, both with regard to the WPA and other unchallenged actions by previous administrations.

Congress has only itself to blame, for lacking the courage to stand up to various administrations by refusing to fund such military actions.

In 1990 the US District Court for the District of Columbia refused to hear a challenge to the Executive’s use of military power without Congressional approval, noting this was a political, not legal, issue:

It is the position of the Department of Justice on behalf of the President that the simultaneous existence of all these provisions renders it impossible to isolate the war-declaring power. The Department further argues that the design of the Constitution is to have the various war- and military-related provisions construed and acting together, and that their harmonization 1145*1145 is a political rather than a legal question. In short, the Department relies on the political question doctrine.

That doctrine is premised both upon the separation of powers and the inherent limits of judicial abilities. See generally, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962); Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 68 S.Ct. 431, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948). In relation to the issues involved in this case, the Department of Justice expands on its basic theme, contending that by their very nature the determination whether certain types of military actions require a declaration of war is not justiciable, but depends instead upon delicate judgments by the political branches. On that view, the question whether an offensive action taken by American armed forces constitutes an act of war (to be initiated by a declaration of war) or an "offensive military attack" (presumably undertaken by the President in his capacity as commander-in-chief) is not one of objective fact but involves an exercise of judgment based upon all the vagaries of foreign affairs and national security. Motion to Dismiss at 1150. Indeed, the Department contends that there are no judicially discoverable and manageable standards to apply, claiming that only the political branches are able to determine whether or not this country is at war. Such a determination, it is said, is based upon "a political judgment" about the significance of those facts. Under that rationale, a court cannot make an independent determination on this issue because it cannot take adequate account of these political considerations.

RONALD V

Consequently, it is the position of the courts that the Executive must be free to direct military forces as he sees fit independently of the Congress, so that he might address a crisis in a timely manner, in the context of National security.

Lets see how many Liberals are willing to answer this question.

It has nothing to do with ‘liberals’ or Obama, as presidents of both political parties have committed military forces without congressional authorization prior to the current Administration.

 

[Douger]

You're the meathead that swore to 'defend against all enemies foreign and domestic".
Vamos !

 

[Lakhota]

Does Obama have the authority to attack Syria without Congressional authority?

Assuming the action takes more then 90 days.

Why not assume it takes less than 90 days? Then, the answer is yes.

 

[Avorysuds]

All I know is this country is in the crapper and it's gonna take 50 years or more to get our name in good standing if that is even possible... And we are not even heading in the right direction for that to happen in 2012 sooo...

Keep spending money we don't have Reps and Dems.

 

[Valox]

No wonder you are retired. John Rambo would never ask this question.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Lets see how many Liberals are willing to answer this question.

Baiting, just like a troll.

 

[Valox]

Lets see how many Liberals are willing to answer this question.

Baiting, just like a troll.

You need new material. You are old and crusty, like a troll.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Lets see how many Liberals are willing to answer this question.

Baiting, just like a troll.

You need new material. You are old and crusty, like a troll.

Trolling.

 

[editec]

Legally I am not qualified to say.

Realistically speaking I'd say that our presidents have pretty much done whatever they choose and Congress backed them up ex post facto.

So the real question is this: Are we really a nation of LAWS anymore?

The answer is yes and no.

For most of us we still living in a nation governed by the law.

For the masters?

They ARE the law.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

As folks have pointed out, the law and the constitution say one thing, how far either side is willing to push it is another.

 

[Dragon]

Why is that question even being asked? It's a question of fact, and easily-ascertainable fact at that. The answer is no, according to act of Congress.

And why in the world would you expect liberals, who tend to be AGAINST unilateral executive warmaking power, to answer yes?

Oh, wait, I forgot -- you're operating on this inane theory that liberals are backers of Obama no matter what he does.

Now that you've gotten universal no answers to your poll, are you prepared to revise your theory?

I won't hold my breath.

 

[regent]

Yep, reminds one of Reagan sending the airforce to bomb Libya, and just before the airplanes arrived on target, Reagan infomed Congress of the coming strike.
Or Teddy Roosevelt sending the fleet around the world with just enough fuel to make it half way and saying, let Congress get em home.
Unless Congress backs up their laws, forget it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why is that question even being asked? It's a question of fact, and easily-ascertainable fact at that. The answer is no, according to act of Congress.

And why in the world would you expect liberals, who tend to be AGAINST unilateral executive warmaking power, to answer yes?

Oh, wait, I forgot -- you're operating on this inane theory that liberals are backers of Obama no matter what he does.

Now that you've gotten universal no answers to your poll, are you prepared to revise your theory?

I won't hold my breath.

Only a couple of you fringers answered the poll, the rest of the libs will hide from it because they WILL openly support Obama as they did in Libya.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You know its trolling when someone preemptively attacks someone for something they haven't done yet just for the sake of partisan bickering.