U.S. Attacks Syria

[Dill]

(04-16-2018, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I have zero doubt that Assad deserved what he got. I just feel like we have gotten to a point of ignoring our own law on this sort of thing. For instance, this is from 50 USC, Section 1541 which is from the War Powers Resolution: 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.

Does what happened with Syria meet those criteria? Based on what we know, the answer is no. If the answer is yes, then that needs to be said. I get the desire to handle the situation in Syria. Assad is a piece of garbage. I just think it should have Congressional approval based upon our current laws.

Yes, that is what the WPR says, but every president since Ford has violated these requirements. There are so many ways to maneuver around them with "special" interpretations of statutory authorizations and disagreements as to when exactly the timeline kicks in. The president only has to "consult" or "report" before starting any action. In effect, the President, not Congress, has first rights in deciding when the conditions have been fulfilled. 

The #1 problem in every case is that Congress does little to nothing whenever it is violated.  Congress has the final say in whether a military action is constitutional/legal, and it can order the President to remove troops out of whatever theater with a concurrent resolution (they can also defund specific actions), but the president's party almost always fights/blocks any Congressional control of their president's foreign policy actions. (As you know, since the Cold War Consensus broke down it has been really hard to get both parties and both houses working together. They did for a year or so after 9/11, but the Iraq invasion destroyed bipartisanship again.) Also, there is good reason for not wanting to restrict a president's ability to react quickly. 

Here I think Trump is on some legal ground if he cites previous presidential actions, and extra-legally he can trust his Congress to prevent any repercussions beyond loud Dem complaints. They could even create authorization after the fact.