Dear America, Just to be clear, Obama's choice to send troops into Syria clearly oversteps the constitutional...
Dear America,
Just to be clear, Obama's choice to send troops into Syria clearly oversteps the constitutional powers of the President, as laid out int he War Powers Resolution. The President can only send troops into hostilities "pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
This is not the first time Obama has violated the law by using the military when it did not fit one of those three requirements. Now, Obama could claim that the law -- which in this sense merely states what the constitutional requirements are -- is wrong, and superseded by a proper constitutional interpretation, wherein the President can use the military whenever he sees fit, perhaps absent a congressional prohibition.
But he should make that case explicitly, if that is his view, because as it stands, he is facially violating the law. And saying these are not "combat troops" doesn't change a thing, because these troops are being introduced into hostilities.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/258726-syria-troop-deployment-stirs-war-bill-debate
Just to be clear, Obama's choice to send troops into Syria clearly oversteps the constitutional powers of the President, as laid out int he War Powers Resolution. The President can only send troops into hostilities "pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
This is not the first time Obama has violated the law by using the military when it did not fit one of those three requirements. Now, Obama could claim that the law -- which in this sense merely states what the constitutional requirements are -- is wrong, and superseded by a proper constitutional interpretation, wherein the President can use the military whenever he sees fit, perhaps absent a congressional prohibition.
But he should make that case explicitly, if that is his view, because as it stands, he is facially violating the law. And saying these are not "combat troops" doesn't change a thing, because these troops are being introduced into hostilities.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/258726-syria-troop-deployment-stirs-war-bill-debate
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment