Madow is holding Obamas feet to the fire. WAR POWERS

[rsmith6621]

Tomorrow it will be 60 days since the POTUS sent troops in to Iraq and that means the war powers act run out unless congress approves that he can continue on longer.

Is Obama purposely overstepping his limits.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Yeah. Just like Libya.

What if he doesn't? Are Progressives going to start arguing for impeachment? I doubt it, especially when the senate hangs in the balance. The WPA is dead.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Do something President Obama! ...

So we can say you went too far/not far enough/acted too late/acted too quickly ... All while ignoring the body that is constitutionally responsible.

[pnwmom]

3. Who in Congress is trying to stop him?

And the Ambassador to Syria resigned because he could no longer justify American policy there.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/politics/obama-iraq-turning-point-political/

The hands-off approach in Syria even prompted the American ambassador to the country, Robert Ford, to resign recently because he could no longer defend the policy, he told CNN in June.

"Had there been more military assistance ... the opposition would have probably been able to gain ground a couple years ago more quickly," Ford said. " (And) the ability of al Qaeda and Islamist extremist groups to recruit away from the moderates would have been less."

And aside from the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, Ford said there is "nothing we can point to that has been very successful in our policy."

Ford and others have called ISIS a national security threat to the United States and fears are growing that its fighters could return to Europe or the United States and carry out terrorist attacks.

[CJCRANE]

21. That didn't bring stability to Libya

and wouldn't to Syria either IMO.

How about not meddling in sovereign countries?

That's what we're telling Russia in Ukraine.

[pnwmom]

26. Right. No one in Congress is trying to stop him. nt

[TwilightGardener]

4. Congress isn't in session, though.

[pnwmom]

27. Since when can't they speak out when Congress is out of session?

If they object, don't they have voices?

[TwilightGardener]

29. I didn't say they couldn't speak out. I'm just pointing out that granting a new

authorization isn't going to happen until they come back.

[conservaphobe]

5. Nope.

Turner said that Obama can continue ordering airstrikes against ISIS, because they are not a foreign state, just a terrorist group.

“What he’s doing, it’s not an act of war,” Turner said. “He’s essentially coming to the defense of Iraq. Nobody recognizes ISIS as a state. They’re not set up as a government, they’re just a band of terrorists.”

“Uses of force short of war have been carried out many times in this country without Congress being involved,” he added.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/214896-legal-experts-obama-walks-fine-line-on-strikes#ixzz3AKH8EVMM

[jakeXT]

20. And Syria is harboring terrorists, you know /nt

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Actually she was kind of going after Congress. nt

[tularetom]

7. I hope he isn't letting Clinton and other neocons goad him into this

Because it sure appears to me that he's violating his motto of "Don't Do Stupid Shit".

[napi21]

8. Accurate statement by Rachel, but the loafing congress is....

ON VACATION AGAIN! Surely she doesn't expect the congress to give up some of their vacation tie just to go back to DC to DO THEIR JOB?Fat chance THAT will happen!

[rsmith6621]

9. so politically.....

...it would be in the POTUS best interest if he challenged ORANGE TANMAN TO RETURN and vote. It would call their bluff on all of the cries for further engagement or it would show once again congress just cant get things done.

[Hosnon]

10. She tried to boil down a very complex constitutional issue, and didn't succeed.

Congress is not the only branch granted authority over war by the Constitution. The President is very clearly the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. In fact, it's arguable that the President holds the entire federal war authority except for the power to declare war. And even the power to declare war is just that - the power to declare war. The Founders very specifically narrowed this clause from "make" to "declare" because they recognized that a state of war can exist absent a declaration from Congress (e.g., invasion).

As for the War Powers Resolution, it is valid only to the extent that it does not attempt to alter the constitutional war authority of the President (a mere statute cannot amend the Constitution). It was only passed over the veto of Nixon, and every President (save perhaps Carter) viewed it as an unconstitutional power grab by Congress.

Finally, even assuming the War Powers Resolution is valid, it is simply a statute. Statutes and treaties ratified pursuant to Article II (President + 2/3s of the Senate) are equal and the earlier in time yields. So - if we signed such a defensive treaty with, say, Iraq, after the WPR was enacted, the President would be fully within the bounds of both statutes (as the WPR would yield to the treaty) to send in troops. And that assumes that the relevant provisions of the WPR are constitutional.

I think that anything short of invasion of the U.S. or an ally should require a vote from Congress. But the issue is not as simple as "Congress controls war" as Maddow essentially claimed.

[NightWatcher]

11. uh huh, I'm sure he'll stop out of fear of Maddow.

Presidents dont have to get approval from anyone before they drone bomb, air strike, or send in troops anywhere. Where have you been for the past 12 years?

[AtomicKitten]

12. Rachel's doing important work.

The legal and political ramifications surrounding this are mind boggling. I've got no predictions.

[moondust]

13. She's sounded kind of panicked.

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not convinced it's time to panic yet.

Hagel: Rescue Mission On Iraq's Mount Sinjar Less Likely

I guess the British are sending in some Chinooks and U.S. some Ospreys to ferry Yazidis to safety. They can't go home so probably refugee camps near Kurdistan.

[bigtree]

14. !!

right on!

[tritsofme]

15. I'm not sure I understand the argument. There are not troops on the ground engaged in combat

in Iraq. So any potential WPR clock would not include them.

[mwrguy]

16. There are Army SF troops acting as JTACs

Calling in air strikes. That is a front - line job.

[tritsofme]

18. Air strikes only began recently.

Even if you argue that this action is subject to WPR, we can't have hit day 60 yet.

[mwrguy]

19. Haven't hit 60 days, but that is definitely combat

[tritsofme]

22. Exactly not 60 days, that's what makes Maddow's rant so bizarre.

[pnwmom]

28. Aren't they there to deliver humanitarian relief? And can't they defend themselves? n/t

[WillyT]

17. K & R !!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. I love Rachel, especially after her stellar coverage of Ferguson, but as a political scientist,

she should know better. She knows damn well about constitutional powers. Congress is on vacation. She really thinks Boehner is going to return to D.C. to aid Obama in anything? She really think he's going to be responsible and act?

Come on, Rachel! We're both political scientists but neither of us are immersed in this current political fiasco in D.C.

[bullwinkle428]

24. She was calling out Congress on their supreme hypocrisy. This is the very

same Congress that seems to threaten to sue the President every damn day over the way he chooses to wipe himself, for example. Yet, not a single peep out of them when it comes the use of military deployment and engagement, which is their CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION. They want plausible deniability, such that there won't be one drop of hypothetical blood on their hands if the shit hits the fan. A complete shirking of responsibility on their part.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. O.K., well I guess I don't understand how she is couching her criticism of the president, then.

I'll have to watch this episode to be sure. I podcast her, so I'll watch it later and revise my comments as appropriate.