Trump Exceding Authority in Syria[W:108]

(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543(a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Click to expand...

Why Are U.S. Troops Staying in Syria? Trump Admin. Won?t Say

In a pair of letters issued within the last month, Pentagon and State Department officials indicated that the Trump administration envisions U.S. soldiers remaining on the ground in Syria and Iraq indefinitely, even once Islamic State militants have been defeated, and does not believe it requires additional permission from Congress to do so.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

This is far more important than Russian conspiracies, tweets, or even domestic violence. Now that the war against ISIS is over in Syria, the US military has no business and no authority to be involved in a Syrian civil war. The constitution specifically states that the President is Commander when called into service, and that congress has the power to declare war, raise and support armies. Further, congress passed a law which specifically prohibits deployment without ongoing authorization from congress.



Unfortunately Trump is claiming he has unlimited power to wage war in the public interest, which simply isnt the case. Congress will need to act to keep him in check.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

He's following in Obama's shoes. Obama violated the War Powers Resolution in Libya, but, if you recall, Congress did nothing.

They will do nothing now as well.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

This is far more important than Russian conspiracies, tweets, or even domestic violence. Now that the war against ISIS is over in Syria, the US military has no business and no authority to be involved in a Syrian civil war. The constitution specifically states that the President is Commander when called into service, and that congress has the power to declare war, raise and support armies. Further, congress passed a law which specifically prohibits deployment without ongoing authorization from congress.



Unfortunately Trump is claiming he has unlimited power to wage war in the public interest, which simply isnt the case. Congress will need to act to keep him in check.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

He's following in Obama's shoes. Obama violated the War Powers Resolution in Libya, but, if you recall, Congress did nothing.

They will do nothing now as well.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

This is far more important than Russian conspiracies, tweets, or even domestic violence. Now that the war against ISIS is over in Syria, the US military has no business and no authority to be involved in a Syrian civil war. The constitution specifically states that the President is Commander when called into service, and that congress has the power to declare war, raise and support armies. Further, congress passed a law which specifically prohibits deployment without ongoing authorization from congress.



Unfortunately Trump is claiming he has unlimited power to wage war in the public interest, which simply isnt the case. Congress will need to act to keep him in check.

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

Congress abrogating its responsibility to declare war goes back way farther than that. The war in Vietnam that wasn't called a war springs to mind. Then there was the Korean "conflict." We haven't declared war since 1941.

You really have to stretch the partisanship to think of Libya before thinking of Iraq.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

They dont have to formally declare war, just authorize force as congress did in Vietnam. Korea is a differnt issue. I dont think we had a defense treaty and congress didnt authorize action. Syria is a bit more muddled since the military is authorized to fight terrorism basically anywhere. But thats over in Syria. Congress needs to be involved now.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

This is far more important than Russian conspiracies, tweets, or even domestic violence. Now that the war against ISIS is over in Syria, the US military has no business and no authority to be involved in a Syrian civil war. The constitution specifically states that the President is Commander when called into service, and that congress has the power to declare war, raise and support armies. Further, congress passed a law which specifically prohibits deployment without ongoing authorization from congress.



Unfortunately Trump is claiming he has unlimited power to wage war in the public interest, which simply isnt the case. Congress will need to act to keep him in check.

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

Congress abrogating its responsibility to declare war goes back way farther than that. The war in Vietnam that wasn't called a war springs to mind. Then there was the Korean "conflict." We haven't declared war since 1941.

Click to expand...

You really have to stretch the partisanship to think of Libya before thinking of Iraq.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

You are exactly right. The Military Industrial Complex is totally out of control, as Ike warned about in 1961, and Congress does not enforce its own laws like the War Powers Act of 1973.

What example does it set for the rule of law and constitutional governance when Congress does not obey its own laws?

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

The Constitution disagrees, but then, who cares about that any more?

Click to expand...

Evilroddy said:

jonny5:

The US Congress is an equal copartner in ignoring the US Constitution in matters of declaring war since the late 1970's and is just as responsible for the rise of a militarised state and an imperial presidency as the executive branch is. To both branches war has become an extension of business by other means (to borrow from Carl Von Clausewitz) and the Congressional-Military-Surveillance-Industrial-Complex is quite happy to ignore the required legal niceties of declaration of war or proper and closely defined authorisation for military force in pursuit of both "happiness" for the few and hegemony over the many.

Welcome to the forever-war, where everyone is a legitimate target including US citizens who become too inconvenient. A revolution (not necessarily a violent one, however) of the people is the only thing which will correct this top-down abuse of the US Constitution, but such a revolution would be too inconvenient in the extreme. Thus the ongoing and parallel militarisation of US police forces, other law enforcement agencies and the proliferation of privately owned mercenary and surveillance companies, all operating on American territory, into what are becoming a network of paramilitary gendarmeries in support of the oligarchy's established hierarchy. Unfettered militarism and power does not like to be limited nor challenged and prefers authoritarian hierarchy to direct democracy or an unchecked representative democracy in revolt against authoritarianism. Control and the pursuit of their happiness is foremost in the oligarchs' minds, not your liberty nor your equality. The next two to three decades of US history could become very dark indeed.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

To be fair, there's plenty of evidence that the War Powers Resolution isn't constitutional -- but, instead of ignore it, they ought to at least rescind it to keep this from happening.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

This is far more important than Russian conspiracies, tweets, or even domestic violence. Now that the war against ISIS is over in Syria, the US military has no business and no authority to be involved in a Syrian civil war. The constitution specifically states that the President is Commander when called into service, and that congress has the power to declare war, raise and support armies. Further, congress passed a law which specifically prohibits deployment without ongoing authorization from congress.



Unfortunately Trump is claiming he has unlimited power to wage war in the public interest, which simply isnt the case. Congress will need to act to keep him in check.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

How would rescinding it keep the President from engaging in war?

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

The war against ISIS is over? Says who? Did ISIS surrender and we just didn't hear about it?

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

It wouldn't. But, it's not doing that now, is it?

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

It is in Syria. We are now fighting the Syrian govt.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

The constitution does not require them to declare war or specify a form, it just says they have power to. They also have the power to make all laws regarding their powers so its really up to the congress.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

To be fair, there's plenty of evidence that the War Powers Resolution isn't constitutional -- but, instead of ignore it, they ought to at least rescind it to keep this from happening.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

This is far more important than Russian conspiracies, tweets, or even domestic violence. Now that the war against ISIS is over in Syria, the US military has no business and no authority to be involved in a Syrian civil war. The constitution specifically states that the President is Commander when called into service, and that congress has the power to declare war, raise and support armies. Further, congress passed a law which specifically prohibits deployment without ongoing authorization from congress.



Unfortunately Trump is claiming he has unlimited power to wage war in the public interest, which simply isnt the case. Congress will need to act to keep him in check.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

Again, says who? Did ISIS surrender? Syrian government troops shooting at Americans is hardly surprising given they helped prop up pro Saddam terrorists for years after Iraqi Freedom and according to the Iraqi Air Force got chemical weapons in return.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Your last sentence is vague and misleading. "make all laws regarding their powers" is not accurate. Here is the accurate statement, courtesy of Article I Section 8: "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS

Click to expand...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Click to expand...

[107th Congress Public Law 40]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


<DOC>
[DOCID: fubl040.107]


[[Page 115 STAT. 224]]

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):
Sept. 18, Presidential statement.

<all>

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm

Click to expand...