It is more important than ever before that the citizens of our nation know and understand the truth as far as it is possible to understand that truth, regarding the proposed military intervention in Syria. We must not be taken in by sound bites, slogans and one liner’s either. Know the true elements surrounding the issue really are, not what someone says they are. To that end I share one factor that is being used to obfuscate the issue which is whether the President has the legal authority and power to commit troops to actions and involvements that fall short of declaring war on an enemy. I cite only two references, The Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. As the basis for my comments here and urge you to check the information out for yourself – if for no other reason than to keep me honest! Of course these references are mere words subject to interpretation, so I should you see a different interpretation from mine, I urge you to make it known here. I profess no special legal knowledge and espouse no special talent or ability that would in any way qualify me as an expert. I’d like to think what I say here is common sense understanding of the issue. Article 8 of the Constitution assigns to Congress and Congress alone the authority to declare war, while our dear founding fathers in consensus decided that the president as the highest civilian should be “the Commander in Chief” of our fighting forces. The Constitution gives no guidance, or expresses no procedure for HOW Congress is to declare war. The Constitution does not give the Commander in Chief unlimited power since he cannot declare war, nor can he raise and maintain an Army since Congress is tasked to do those things. Clearly if the president is the Commander in Chief, he can order troops to deploy, and many presidents have done just that. However, in the last century with the advent of the cold war, this uncertainty of who can order military assaults, air strikes, missile strikes, etc. into combat caused enough doubt and uncertainty as well as hindrances to timely responses that Congress, in 1973, passed a resolution (over the Veto of President Nixon) what has become known as the War Powers Act. Make no mistake here, the War Powers Act was political in intent as well, because it allowed Congress to, at any time, to ORDER the president to disengage troops in combat in an undeclared war, and the President has 60 to 90 days to complete the withdrawal. Here is where it gets crazy, Every President since Nixon has strongly refused to invoke the law. In 1991 George Bush tried an end run around the War Powers Act letting Congress debate authorization to using force in the Persian Gulf – without admitting he (The President) was subject to the War Powers act. In 2002, George W. Bush obtained congressional authority to send our troops into overthrow Saddam Hussein. With that brief, abbreviated history of the War Powers Act out of the way, let’s look at what it specifically says in regard to the Presidents authorization to commit troops to battle. It reiterates the Constitutional powers of the Congress and the President in this regard; here I quote only the President’s powers: “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war , (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Secondly, the War Powers Act requires the President to do the following: “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.” Notice that the president is required to consult Congress BEFORE introducing troops into hostilities, etc” The War Powers act further requires the president to report to congress every six months the status of the conflict, which congress is obligated to review. Upon review congress can an may ORDER the president to withdraw all troops – and the president then has 60 to 90 days to comply. OK, hang in there folks were coming to the end soon – If you look this over carefully. The president may only act to commit troops IF HE IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY FROM CONGRESS and the President can be ordered by Congress to withdraw the troops. My conclusion is that any president, who commits troops to a conflict when he has not been authorized by congress prior to sending the troops in, is in violation of the law and should therefore be impeached without delay. Tragically, this law has been ignored and abused by more than one president. Let us hope that this president follows the law to the letter. Don’t be fooled by the hawks that want to kill and maim people with bombs, missiles, rockets, etc. because the leader of a sovereign nation killed and maimed his people with chemicals. The hawks will obfuscate the truth of the law, they will say we need to “save face”, “prevent use of chemicals in the future”, “show our opposition to criminals”, “show our resolve”, or “show that we mean business.” Its an awful civil war in Syria – ugly and bloody, stomach wrenching awful, people are dying by the droves, suffering by the droves, but then this was so for the American Civil War as well.
Posted on: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:22:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015