Airstrikes launched as Turkey begins northern Syria military operation

[jpmuscle]

If the Congress wants a war, they can declare a war.

Lol that’ll be the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Lol that’ll be the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The vote would be fun to watch. The debate on the actual verbiage would be priceless. I'm sure there would be a gender-equity clause in it and some kind of 'only green, organic and GMO free bullets"....

[26 Inf]

If the Congress wants a war, they can declare a war. I’d love to see what the declaration would look like.

I admit that I'm pretty hawkish, but this is what we should go back to - kind of like the law says, huh?

[flenna]

I admit that I'm pretty hawkish, but this is what we should go back to - kind of like the law says, huh?

Think of all the “wars” we have been involved in yet Congress has only declared it in 5 wars: The War of 1812, Mexican American War, The Spanish American War, WW1 and WW2.

[NWPilgrim]

I would be totally fine with following the law and let Congress shoulder their Constitutional responsibility. I believe the President can respond to emergencies which is for only 90 days(?). After that we we should be doing a mandatory declaration or withdrawal. No executive extensions or passes by Congress.

Besides, we can drop a lot of nukes in 90 days!

[Todd.K]

Think of all the “wars” we have been involved in yet Congress has only declared it in 5 wars: The War of 1812, Mexican American War, The Spanish American War, WW1 and WW2.

There is no format given for congress to declare war. GWOT authorization of force was declared.

[NWPilgrim]

There is no format given for congress to declare war. GWOT authorization of force was declared.

The generally accepted format for the last 150 years or so has been for an act of Congress to be passed the contains the words “declare war.” The undeclared wars are what we are talking about. The ones waged based solely on Authorizations of Congress (all since 1942). The 1973 Wars Powers Act was supposed to prevent “more Vietnams,” which it did until GWOT. Those were all limited timeframe wars: Grenada, Iraq 1, Kosovo (stretched it a bit), etc.

The GWOT trashes all aspects of Constitutional powers in two ways. War is declared by our nation on one or more other nations. “Terror” is not a nation and no way to get a formal surrender or victory. This should never have been allowed. The specific enemy nations should have been enumerated. This kind of implies that we not go terrorist hunting and pretend we are still friends with the nation they are hiding in. We either stay out and try to get the host nation to kill them, or we declare war on the host nation(s) and make no bones apart stomping through to root them out.

Secondly, Authorizations are for a 60-day period for emergencies only. I don’t know how they got around this unless they just trashed the War Powers Resolution. So the GWOT is diametrically opposed to the very idea the Founders had, and was confirmed after Vietnam: we do not want forever wars. If we commit our military it should be for defined nations and victory, or for very short term emergencies. 18 years is not an emergency (acute) condition. It is a non-emergency condition (chronic) that may take many clearly defined steps to address. But never should be open ended invasion, rebellions, occupations that have no end point.

[Belmont31R]

Do you honestly believe the US deserves any indigenous allies fighting on our behalf when we decide to invade some place at this point?

I don't. That's just one more reason we shouldn't be going there, much less staying there.

They weren't fighting on our behalf. They were fighting because fighting benefits them, and we were giving them $$$/supplies.

The Kurds, as a whole, want their own country, but there's several different groups of Kurds. The ones that helped us in N Iraq aren't the ones in N Syria. Some/many of the Kurds are communists who commit terrorism.

Lastly, Obama said 'no boots on the ground' how many times? Trump inherited this mess after Obama waffled around for years. If people care so much people can fly over there, get a rifle, and go fight with the Kurds. They accept foreign volunteers and will give you a gun to go shoot at Turks or ISIS types.

[Todd.K]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 does not specify the need for the words "declare war", the war to be against a recognized Nation State, or the war to be limited to a specific length of time.

Congress is clearly using their Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 power when they "authorize the use of military force". You may think they do so foolishly, but there is also no law against Congress passing foolish laws. Yet...

[NWPilgrim]

Todd, you and I will not resolve this because the Supreme Court has never ruled on it and Congress and Presidents differ.

These forever wars were a real concern by the Founders and various Congresses and even some Presidents and of course generals. Efforts like the War Powers Resolution specifically tried to rein that in in 1973 and pretty much held until GWOT. There needs to be serious deliberation if this and not just attack every nation the Saudis point us to.

I will just quote attorney Lincoln’s concern about unbridled warring (referencing the Mexican War):

"Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge. ... But Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose—and allow him to make war at pleasure. … If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."