President "authorizes" war against ISIS. But can he even do that?

[ezkl2230]

The debate continues to rage regarding the president's authority to declare war and deploy troops. As has come to be expected, the president has said he will authorize war on his own authority as president.


The question is, does he even HAVE authority as the President to declare war?


The following is excerpted from remarks made by Rep. Albert Gallatin during the debate that took place in the House of Representatives between April 20 through May 10, 1798 regarding a bill - passed by the Senate - that would have delegated authority to raise a "provisional" army to the president:

"This bill goes to authorize the President to raise an army. He did not know what was meant by a provisional army. He did not find anything said in the Constitution of the United States relative to provisional armies, or of giving the President power to raise armies. He found mentioned there no other kind of defense than an army and militia. It says Congress shall raise and support an army, not provide for the raising of an army; but this bill is to enable the President of the United States to raise an army. The Constitution has declared that the raising of an army is placed in Congress, but this bill goes to declare that this power shall be vested by law in the President. That is the principle of the bill; and if Congress were once to admit the principle that they have a right to vest in the President powers placed in their hands by the Constitution that instrument would become a piece of blank paper. If it were to be admitted in one case, it would be admitted in another; and, if admitted in one department, it might be admitted in another. The power to raise taxes, he said, is contained in the same article of the Constitution which says Congress shall raise armies. And if they could delegate the power of raising an army to the President, why not do the same with respect to the power of raising taxes? He supposed the House would next hear of provisional taxes, to be raised if the President shall think fit. Mr. G., therefore, thought the principle inadmissible. If the circumstances of the union required an army, let it be raised; if not, he wished to give no power to raise it--especially, as the President, if he saw necessity, could call Congress together, if he should find that the circumstances of the country required it," emphasis added.

Mr. Gallatin's remarks are consistent with the law as laid down in the United States Constitution, Article I Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power…
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…"

Any questions?

 

[Bikenut]

Yes ezkl2230... I have a question... and it isn't directed at you or anyone else but is a very general question................

"Is there anyone with half a brain that doesn't understand that the United States government does not have a division of power between the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, as set forth in the Constitution but the United States is now governed by a progressive Dictator masquerading as a President with the cooperation of a progressive Congress and a progressive Supreme Court?"

 

[ezkl2230]

Yes ezkl2230... I have a question... and it isn't directed at you or anyone else but is a very general question................

"Is there anyone with half a brain that doesn't understand that the United States government does not have a division of power between the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, as set forth in the Constitution but the United States is now governed by a progressive Dictator masquerading as a President with the cooperation of a progressive Congress and a progressive Supreme Court?"

The question may be rhetorical, but I'll take it: Yes, we know.

It is also what we are trying to get our congresscritters to realize and confront as well - before a second American revolution becomes necessary to re-establish what the ballot box can obviously no longer correct.

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

Yes, President Obama has the power to declare war on the terrorist in Iraq because Congress has already given President George W. Bush the power declare a War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanstan and this Declaration of War has NOT ended.

Like Obama pointed out during his speech, ISIS/ISIL or whatever you want to call them is not a government or established group that is recognized by any gov't but are in fact a terror group.

Obama did say he would need Congressional approval to attack terrorist in Syria and Africa.

Paul

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

P.S. I say We nuke 'em with a couple of well placed tactical nukes, mainly in Syria.

It would put and end to ISIS/ISIL. The grass might not grow for 30 years but hey, it's the desert and there isn't much grass there anyway.

Paul

 

[ezkl2230]

Howdy,

Yes, President Obama has the power to declare war on the terrorist in Iraq because Congress has already given President George W. Bush the power declare a War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanstan and this Declaration of War has NOT ended.

Like Obama pointed out during his speech, ISIS/ISIL or whatever you want to call them is not a government or established group that is recognized by any gov't but are in fact a terror group.

Obama did say he would need Congressional approval to attack terrorist in Syria and Africa.

Paul

Don't know why I'm wasting my time with you again, but you are wrong.

Obama declared the global war on terror ended in March, 2009, replacing it instead with an approach that relies on "diplomacy" and our international allies to contain terrorist factions (Link Removed). He declared during a speech at the National Defense University in May of 2013 that al Qaeda, the one organization with which we were "at war," had been defeated - its capabilities degraded to the point where they no longer pose a threat to the US. He recalled our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In short, the Bush-initiated war on terror ended within the first 100 days of Obama's first term in office as a matter of policy, and as a practical matter it ended with the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Therefore, in order for him to pursue a war on ISIS, he must once again receive authorization from Congress.

End of Story.

As for your assertion that Obama made some statement that seems to indicate that he would seek congressional approval for his actions against ISIS, you are, again wrong.

The Hill reports,

"President Obama told congressional leaders at a White House meeting on Tuesday he doesn’t need their authorization to expand his military campaign against Islamic terrorists.
The president offered the assurance one day before a prime-time address he’s scheduled to give to the nation," Obama to leaders: No vote needed on ISIS | TheHill

If he made any such statement as you allege during his speech on Wednesday, then he was - surprise, surprise - lying through his teeth for the benefit of mindless drones like yourself. He had already placed congress on notice the previous day.

I once again refer you to Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

 

[vernsimpson]

The mindless minions say that obummer made a great speech last night. But they would have said the same thing if the only thing that obummer had done before the camera was belch, pass gas (loudly) and scratch himself!

The ONLY reason for the speech last night was because obummer's poll numbers are in the tank!!

 

[Stengun]

Howdy ezkl,

Don't know why I'm wasting my time with you again, but you are wrong.

Obama declared the global war on terror ended in March, 2009, replacing it instead with an approach that relies on "diplomacy" and our international allies to contain terrorist factions (Link Removed). He declared during a speech at the National Defense University in May of 2013 that al Qaeda, the one organization with which we were "at war," had been defeated - its capabilities degraded to the point where they no longer pose a threat to the US. He recalled our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In short, the Bush-initiated war on terror ended within the first 100 days of Obama's first term in office as a matter of policy, and as a practical matter it ended with the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Therefore, in order for him to pursue a war on ISIS, he must once again receive authorization from Congress.

End of Story.

As for your assertion that Obama made some statement that seems to indicate that he would seek congressional approval for his actions against ISIS, you are, again wrong.

The Hill reports,



If he made any such statement as you allege during his speech on Wednesday, then he was - surprise, surprise - lying through his teeth for the benefit of mindless drones like yourself. He had already placed congress on notice the previous day.

I once again refer you to Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

You are wrong. The War On Terror still continues today.

Obama has NEVER stopped the WOT and his drone strikes against known terrorist in Pakistan and Yemen has caused all you panty-waist basement dwellers to get your panties in a wad.


Mindless drones? Now coming for a phony hypocrite that has his head so far up his hinny he'll never need a rectal exam that's funny.

Besides, just because it isn't what you want to hear doesn't mean it isn't the truth.

Paul

 

[Happypuppy]

The logic that is used is interesting. post Vietnam the wars powers act was created to prevent "police actions " that were really wars.

However, Obama thinks has met the spirit of it. The washington post says no

Link Removed



James Wilson, one of the advocates for a strong presidency in the Constitution, nonetheless reassured his state ratifying convention in 1787: “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large….”

 

[juliefrdmn]

I wonder what will happen with them in the near future.

 

[ezkl2230]

The logic that is used is interesting. post Vietnam the wars powers act was created to prevent "police actions " that were really wars.

However, Obama thinks has met the spirit of it. The washington post says no

Link Removed



James Wilson, one of the advocates for a strong presidency in the Constitution, nonetheless reassured his state ratifying convention in 1787: “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large….”

The war powers resolution of 1973 was written with James Madison's views of the authority of the executive to declare war in mind. According to Madison, the executive only has authority to use force when necessary to repel a sudden attack. The following is from Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, Aug. 17, 1787:

"Mr. Madison and Mr Gerry moved to insert 'declare,' striking out 'make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.

"Mr Sharman thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. 'Make' better than 'declare' the latter narrowing the power too much.
"Mr Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war," James Madison: President Can Use Force Without Authorization Only 'to Repel Sudden Attacks' | CNS News.

Wikipedia gives a very good summation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[SUP][1][/SUP] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress Link Removed; this provides that the President can sendU.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you observed, it was intended to keep the president from committing our troops to war without congressional authorization, while still giving the executive the ability to repel sudden attacks. Nothing Obama has done so far,including involving us in Libya, meets that standard.

 

[indyyy]

It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large….”

I had to look it up because I wasn't real sure - The United States has officially declared war only 5 times in it's history, while I saw in another link that we've actually been involved in some 63 wars:

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

according to the wikepedia link, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War, WW1, and WW2 are the only wars that Congress declared that we've been in.

I'm not sure what Vietnam, Korea, and the Middle East were all about - just some minor skirmishes I guess :wacko:

It seems our modern leaders are more interested in finding ways of getting around the system than to use it as it was meant to be used.

 

[jrs]

But wait!!!! John Kerry is out there today saying that "We are not at war with ISIS!" What gives? The administration wouldn't be sending mixed messages, would they? They wouldn't be saying one thing in Obummer's speech and doing another, would they? Hmmm... Let's see.... You can keep your health plan...You can keep your doctor.... Not even a smidgen of corruption in the IRS... ??? Our esteemed President, or should I say Liar in Chief, wouldn't lie to us, would he?

 

[gunnerbob]

Howdy ezkl,



You are wrong. The War On Terror still continues today.

Obama has NEVER stopped the WOT and his drone strikes against known terrorist in Pakistan and Yemen has caused all you panty-waist basement dwellers to get your panties in a wad.


Mindless drones? Now coming for a phony hypocrite that has his head so far up his hinny he'll never need a rectal exam that's funny.

Besides, just because it isn't what you want to hear doesn't mean it isn't the truth.

Paul

Link Removed




Paul, does your mommy know you're on the computer again?

 

[gunnerbob]

Howdy,

P.S. I say We nuke 'em with a couple of well placed tactical nukes, mainly in Syria.

It would put and end to ISIS/ISIL. The grass might not grow for 30 years but hey, it's the desert and there isn't much grass there anyway.

Paul

No, it wouldn't.

 

[ezkl2230]

Paul, does your mommy know you're on the computer again?

I have to say, I will sleep much better tonight knowing that according to Paul I am a "phony hypocrite" rather than the real thing! :thank_you2:

 

[kelcarry]

Can he do this--you ask? Of course he can. Just ask him. He looked in the mirror today, kissed his image and went about being the emperor with no clothes, with no one willing to do anything about this pathological narcissistic moslem socialist little girlyman turd. That little turd can do whatever he wants I really cannot do anything about it so I could care less--he is not, never has been and never will be MY President.

 

[Stengun]

Howdy girlybob,

Link Removed




Paul, does your mommy know you're on the computer again?

The real question is does YOUR mom know your using her computer? You remind me of my daughter's dumbass punk boyfriend but hopefully one day hr will grow up. I doubt there's much hope for you. Funny thing is he, like you, doesn't realize that he's a dumbass punk kid.

For more "Words of Wisdom" from girlybob read my sig line.

Paul

 

[LDaniel]

And since this is General Firearms Discussions area, I guess ISIS' main weapon will be the AK-47.

 

[dcselby1]

Anyone notice that the administration is shying away from the word "war" the last day or so? Think they've figured out that only the congress can "declare war."