Constitutional Scholar: The Prez Has No Power To Authorize Military Attack Except In Self Defense

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."


Then-Sen. Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/27/syria-intervention-would-reaffirm-obamas-biggest-flip-flop/

 

And Biden agrees!

 

As do I. Too bad no wartime president has ever followed the law in this regard.

 

Too bad, indeed.

 

The War Powers Act has been used by pretty much every single president to use military force since it was passed . Why is this time any different. They all do it and none of them are ever held accountable except by the party that happens to be out of power at that particular moment. Big deal.

 

http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/warpower.htm

 

You need to read it. That is not what it says. Not even close.
BTW, the Constitution says he is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. i.e. he is in charge of the armies. He says what they do where and when including armed actions.

 

And which presidents actually pay attention to the strict wording? Answer NONE!

 

This is the core of the War Powers Act (Resolution)...I'm not reading anything into it. Section 2c is the "meat" of the resolution. The reporting and consultation sections are all subsequent and subordinate to the Policy.

...and NO, the Commander-In-Chief does NOT have Constitutional authority to take the country to war. Section 2b (above) specifically calls that out.

President Nixon vetoed the War Powers Act and his veto was over-ridden. Eventually, the Supreme Court will have to decide.

 

Keep going and read section 5 (b). According to you interpretation, if Russia occupied Europe, we would have to wait until Congress came back into session and voted to retaliate. If North Korea invaded South Korea, we could not retaliate. It does not work that way.

 

No...the War Powers Act gives the President wide authority to take any appropriate action for up to sixty (60) days in case of...

...why do you think we base troops all around the world? They're the "canary in the coal mine".

I used to be one of those "canaries".

There's nothing in the War Powers Act (or the US Constitution) that authorizes Executive action against a sovereign nation due to any kind of attack against their own population...without PRIOR Congressional approval (period).

 

You are reading into it what is not there.

Here is the 1984 interpretation;

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/world/how-war-powers-act-works.html

 

You see...you're not reading the actual "Act". What I posted is the actual verbiage of the Act...not some "New York Times" (ah-hem) interpretation.

What the NY Times leaves out is that the sixty (60) day period only applies to scenarios explicitly outlined in Section 2c of the War Powers Act...

Neither the situation in Libya nor the current situation in Syria fall within these clearly defined authorizations.

If you feel differently, please explain...

 

Here's something interesting...

John Kerry made a speech today saying that "...fatigue does not resolve us of our responsibility"...that's great!

He goes on to say..."Just longing for peace doesn't necessarily bring it about."

The liberal media has cut out his second statement...go figure!

None of these military options would even be on the table if it weren't for Republican foresight and preparedness.

 

I'd like to remind the liberals of what then-Sen. Obama said in 2007:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."​

"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."​

​

 

It's touching to see Israeli hospitals caring for Syrian war victims...