Censure the President: Congress must reclaim its war powers

[EasyAce]

By Kevin D. Williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446643/donald-trump-syria-airstrike-unconstitutional-war-congress-censure

Our so-called constitutional conservatives treat the national charter the way a certain kind of Christian treats the Bible:
They like to carry around copies of it, to wave it at their rivals, to talk about it, and to treat it as a kind of magic item — but if
you should suggest they actually read it or apply it, well, that sounds awfully idealistic.

It is painful, and a little embarrassing, to listen to conservatives try to rationalize President Donald Trump’s plainly illegal attack
on the government of murderous Syrian caudillo Bashar al-Assad. Each rationalization is shallower and sillier than the last.

First, the Trump apologists insist that what has happened is not “war” but merely . . . something else; that it is — here’s one of
those words people use when they want to sound smart —”measured.” Put another way: “Well, Your Honor, think of all the money
I didn’t embezzle from the church’s fund for orphans.” Conservatives here are offering the same defense of President Trump that
Whoopi Goldberg offered for Roman Polanski: War, but not war war. As my colleague Charles C. W. Cooke pointed out — and it
shouldn’t need pointing out — there would not be any question of whether a foreign power’s firing 59 missiles into a U.S. military
installation constituted an act of war. Anyone who suggested otherwise would be rightly mocked.

This matters, because the Constitution invests Congress — not the president — with the power to decide whether to go to war. This
isn’t a question of some obscure provision such as the emoluments clause — it is clearly spelled out in Article I. The language is
unequivocal. It is so obvious that it has reduced some conservatives to arguing that Congress’s constitutional power to declare war
is no limit on the president’s power to make war. Put another way: “None of the Ten Commandments explicitly says you cannot break
the Ten Commandments.” This is risible sophistry on the Clinton model.

Others argue that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. Perhaps, but if it is, it is because it delegates too much power to the
president — power that the Constitution explicitly invests in Congress. It is worth considering that the War Powers Resolution was
adopted to constrain executive military ambition, and that none of its criteria licensing immediate executive action with subsequent
congressional consultation — an attack on the United States, on U.S. possessions abroad, or on U.S. forces — applies in the matter
of Syria. But if you believe that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, then you should be working for its repeal in Congress
or its voiding by the Supreme Court.

As the federal courts felt it necessary to make plain to President Barack Obama and his administration: “The president and federal
agencies may not ignore statutory mandates or prohibitions merely because of policy disagreement with Congress.” Some on the
Right have argued that the separation of powers in effect renders the president above the law, that he cannot be made subordinate
to statute. The absurd implications of this would including the president’s being immune from Supreme Court rulings as well.

Still others have said that the president’s attack on Syria is justified because Syria violated international law by using chemical
weapons. But treaties and international agreements require enabling legislation if they are to have any legal force in the matter
of U.S. government operations. International accords on chemical weapons do not preempt Article 1 of the Constitution. Neither
does the Chemical Weapons Implementation Act, which in putting U.S. law into the service of the Chemical Weapons Convention
tasks the State Department and the Treasury Department with various duties, but has no effect on Congress’s war powers. Until
five minutes ago, conservatives were nearly unanimous in scoffing at the notion that international law or foreign law ought to be
considered dispositive — if it is considered at all — in the domestic context. Some of the more energetic partisans on the right
wanted judges impeached for citing foreign law. Now, suddenly, they are converts.

Others say that the president must “send a message,” as though that were a general war license, or complain that President Obama
did more, as though his eight years of abusing presidential power ought to be considered the proper precedent. And some cite the
long-standing Authorization for Use of Military Force passed in response to 9/11, as though that were a warrant to make war on any
country with a Muslim resident — and, in the case of Syria, to fight in service of the Islamic State and sundry jihadists.

One of the things that are supposed to distinguish conservatives from progressives — and once did — is an abiding respect for, even
a cherishing of, process. Woodrow Wilson and his ilk despised the Constitution, just as our would-be political-speech police despise
it today, because it stands in the way of what they believe to be the right thing. And no doubt it sometimes does stand in the way of
the right thing — the point of the Constitution is to create a political order with a particular character, not to ensure that we get our
preferred outcome in every federal matter. To see conservatives adopt the outcome-above-order attitude in a matter as important as
launching a preemptive war in Syria is dispiriting.

Congressional Republicans have two choices: One, they can censure the president and insist that no further action be taken without
legal authorization. Two, they can stop calling themselves “constitutional conservatives,” because those who knuckle under now are
no such thing.

[bolobaby]

Yep.

Agree or disagree with whether or not Syria needs a spanking, it should be clear that we've stretched the definition of war in these past two decades.

[ABX]

The President went to Congress w/ in 48 hours of initiating the strike, thus legally fulfilling the requirements of the War Powers Act.

Congress' job now is to review the evidence and authorize or reject future action, which may be an declaration of war, force authorization, or other legal statement.

At this point, it is in their hands for future action.

[EasyAce]

The President went to Congress w/ in 48 hours of initiating the strike, thus legally fulfilling the requirements of the War Powers Act.

Congress' job now is to review the evidence and authorize or reject future action, which may be an declaration of war, force authorization, or other legal statement.

At this point, it is in their hands for future action.

From the original article: It is worth considering that the War Powers Resolution was
adopted to constrain executive military ambition, and that none of its criteria licensing
immediate executive action with subsequent congressional consultation — an attack on
the United States, on U.S. possessions abroad, or on U.S. forces — applies in the matter
of Syria.

[Victoria33]

@EasyAce

Trump is proud today to brag about "sending an Armada of ships and submarines" to the coast off North Korea.  If he gives an order to attack in any way, using the same reason he bombed Syria on his own, he starts a major war.

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce

Trump is proud today to brag about "sending an Armada of ships and submarines" to the coast off North Korea.  If he gives an order to attack in any way, using the same reason he bombed Syria on his own, he starts a major war.

@Victoria33
Will it be a major war in the Far East or a major war in his own party. ;)