Brian4Liberty
09-29-2014, 11:34 AM
Seven Awful Reasons for Bypassing Congress on ISIS
The Constitution is clear on war powers, and yet Congress may not weigh in until next year.
By W. James Antle III • September 29, 2014
Maybe if we’re lucky, Congress will vote on the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria—already underway—sometime next year. While a few brave souls are calling for a vote before then, the midterm elections seem to overrule the Constitution.
...
Yet some people don’t think Congress should have to vote at all. More than a few defenders of expansive presidential war powers say they are conservatives.
Why do people who (rightly) oppose the president usurping the power to determine when the Senate is in recess so he can fill a National Labor Relations Board vacancy believe it is fine for him to flout the Constitution’s clear language that Congress shall have the power to declare war?
Several reasons for this are often given, all of them deeply problematic.
1. The War Powers Act says it’s okay (at least for 60-90 days). For more than 40 years, presidents have typically asserted that the 1973 War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional encroachment on their executive authority. It was, after all, enacted to limit presidential war-making ability.
...
2. Presidents do foreign policy. You can’t run a war by committee with 535 commanders-in-chief. From ratifying treaties to confirming ambassadors, it is clear that the Framers did envision a foreign-policy role for Congress—that is, the body that appropriates the funds to pay the bills.
...
3. It is antiquated for Congress to declare war...
...
More:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/seven-awful-reasons-for-bypassing-congress-on-isis/
The Constitution is clear on war powers, and yet Congress may not weigh in until next year.
By W. James Antle III • September 29, 2014
Maybe if we’re lucky, Congress will vote on the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria—already underway—sometime next year. While a few brave souls are calling for a vote before then, the midterm elections seem to overrule the Constitution.
...
Yet some people don’t think Congress should have to vote at all. More than a few defenders of expansive presidential war powers say they are conservatives.
Why do people who (rightly) oppose the president usurping the power to determine when the Senate is in recess so he can fill a National Labor Relations Board vacancy believe it is fine for him to flout the Constitution’s clear language that Congress shall have the power to declare war?
Several reasons for this are often given, all of them deeply problematic.
1. The War Powers Act says it’s okay (at least for 60-90 days). For more than 40 years, presidents have typically asserted that the 1973 War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional encroachment on their executive authority. It was, after all, enacted to limit presidential war-making ability.
...
2. Presidents do foreign policy. You can’t run a war by committee with 535 commanders-in-chief. From ratifying treaties to confirming ambassadors, it is clear that the Framers did envision a foreign-policy role for Congress—that is, the body that appropriates the funds to pay the bills.
...
3. It is antiquated for Congress to declare war...
...
More:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/seven-awful-reasons-for-bypassing-congress-on-isis/