Here
and
Now

opinions

Can Obama wage war without consent of Congress?

14 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

Can Obama wage war without consent of Congress?

Why should it bother him?

It never bothered Bush!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the president the power to wage war or send troops into battle. This has been typically used to justify conducting war without a formal congressional declaration. However, it was the framers original intent to give the sole power to declare war to congress which is why it is explicitly stated in Article I, Section 8. However, congress passed the War Powers Act which gives the President 90 days after troops have been sent into battle in order to obtain a formal declaration of war. While this seems like a compromise, the truth is that if a declaration of War is never obtained, the burden lies with congress to use the one tool it has at its disposal to stop the war, which is its ability to cut off funding. Unfortunately, that can be political suicide, and it would be easy for the opposition to use those phrases we see all to often such as that they "don't support the troops" and whatnot. Voting for or against a declaration of war can have vast consequences, which is probably why congress hasn't manned up to formally declare war since WW2. Because of that, the President has a relatively unlimited capacity to declare and wage war. Putting that much power into one person's hands was not the founders original intent, which is why that power was supposed to be used by a deliberative body so that these decisions could not be entered into lightly.

So theoretically, Yes.

Why should it bother him?

It shouldn't.

It never bothered Bush!

Yup!

Also, an attack on an American is an attack on the U.S.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Obama may be able to start war without congressional approval, but we are still faced with the fact that America should mind its own business, and stay out of this religious war. How many times are they going to meddle in the middle east before they realize that absolutely nothing good comes out of it, and the only results are negative.

...unless you're an oil dealer I suppose.

an attack on an American is an attack on the U.S.

If that were true, then every country in the world would be at war with the US.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

He can but he shouldn't, except in the case of an imminent attack. The U.S. people need to have a say, and Congress is the only way to get it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Obama may be able to start war without congressional approval, but we are still faced with the fact that America should mind its own BUSINESS, and stay out of this religious war.

Well that is one opinion, I don't share, especially when it comes to attacking our people. You might think taking a pacifist approach to the war on terror is to sit on the sidelines *(which is exactly what they want in order stop them from being hindered to kill on a mass scale and spread their Caliphate across the ME and the rest of the world, F** that!)

How many times are they going to meddle in the middle east before they realize that absolutely nothing good comes out of it, and the only results are negative.

Just let them slaughter our citizens abroad and at home? Ok, gotcha...

...unless you're an oil dealer I suppose.

Sorry, we get the majority of our oil from Mexico and Canada

If that were true, then every country in the world would be at war with the US.

1) The World is NOT stupid nor suicidal. 2) They won't even get on board for a coalition to fight radical Islam, even when it threatens their very sovereignty. Oh, wait...I forgot, they NEED the US to lead because they don't even have the weaponry to wage a war against radical Islam. And without us as you are witnessing right now without the US being involved in geopolitical politics the way Obama is handling it, you see exactly what happens, the world goes into chaos, completely. 3) We are THE ONLY country that will and can keep the rest of the world from losing their heads from their shoulders.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Well that is one opinion, I don't share, especially when it comes to attacking our people.

If your people were minding their own business and staying out of the region, they wouldn't be getting attacked.

You might think taking a pacifist approach to the war on terror

1) Your own government stopped the 'war on terror' last year.

2) Warring against an idea is one of the stupidest things to come out of the American government, ever. You cannot fight a war against an idea (or rather, you can, but you will never win). All that is necessary for the 'enemy' to continue fighting, is for someone else to decide to be a terrorist. There is no surrender, and there is no unified enemy to defeat.

3) This terror has nothing to do with the US, and all the US does by sticking its nose in business it doesn't belong in, is breed more terror, and more hatred of the US. Fighting in the region is counter productive. Fighting for either side on a religious war is even more counter productive.

Just let them slaughter our citizens abroad and at home?

At home? Are you trying to blame 9-11 on ISIS? And if your citizens abroad weren't where they shouldn't be, they couldn't be 'slaughtered'.

...unless you're an oil dealer I suppose.

Sorry, we get the majority of our oil from Mexico and Canada

You are obviously clueless as to how oil prices work. If your comment was relevant, than the prices of oil in the middle east would not affect the US whatsoever.

an attack on an American is an attack on the U.S.

If that were true, then every country in the world would be at war with the US.

1) The World is NOT stupid nor suicidal.

And yet Americans have been attacked in every country in the world over time. I saw an American get beat up just three months ago. According to you this is an attack on the US, and the American military should be waging war against Japan right now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Whipping the US population into a war frenzy is about as easy as whipping a few scrambled eggs. Throw in a false flag attack (9/11, a beheading, a LOT of MSM bullcrap) and the elite can have perpetual war.

So the headline is really a dumb question since the answer has been obvious since Reagan's time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This 3rd Iraq war (now plus Syria) is currently an off-budget executive action. It is funded entirely with black budget funds (with no expenditure reporting) through U.S. intelligence commands and NATO. The U.S. Congress needs to own-up to the American public soon about (rational) national funding decisions. So far their tepid media cameo protests at being end-run by the President just demonstrate what a bunch of baa baa lobby sheeple they really are. Sticker price shock and awe should happen now not later. This mission will continue active all during and long after the next U.S. Presidential elections in 2016. The 1st and 2nd wars were ostensibly self-financing by potentially securing long-term control over access to oil resources. No such tenable prospects this time. The costs of The 3rd will be significant (perhaps greater all told than the first two combined) and the political social nation building results if any very difficult to confirm or measure. No wonder the push for expanding NATO (and the funding for it) has gone into hyper-drive. US SECTREAS Jack Lew and staff will be doing lots of late night fancy pencil work for some time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@stranger

If your people were minding their own business and staying out of the region, they wouldn't be getting attacked.

Do you say that equally to the Brits and French for putting us all in this mess as well?

1) Your own government stopped the 'war on terror' last year.

Well, it just got restarted, even though Obama likes to use euphemisms such as Incursion, limited strikes, NO boots on the ground (but there are soldiers there) Not war (but technically it is because we are engaging the enemy preemptive) these people are NOT Islamists (what the hell is that supposed to mean, maybe Obama thinks they're Atheists) So the war is in basically underway with the exception and hollowness of the Bush language, but same thing.

2) Warring against an idea is one of the stupidest things to come out of the American government, ever. You cannot fight a war against an idea (or rather, you can, but you will never win). All that is necessary for the 'enemy' to continue fighting, is for someone else to decide to be a terrorist. There is no surrender, and there is no unified enemy to defeat.

No one has ever said that and particularly now, We know we can't change an ideology and a way of thinking, but you can definitely kill as many of these radicals as possible. It just bugs me when libs think, we just leave these people alone and they will just fall back. NO, they won't and if you try to hurt me or my family there is a response. I know the Europeans don't care, that's why they have a lot of problems in Europe with radical Islam, No one is doing anything about. The far right and anti-foreign sentiment is growing and it's just a big mess, between the radical right, the radical Islamists and even the socialist leftists and you say "We have a problem?" I just came back from Europe on a business trip. If Europeans want to keep their head in the sand, so be it. I just care about these guys hurting and killing Americans and if Obama for once can decimate these radicals as many as he can, we can all sleep a lot easier.

3) This terror has nothing to do with the US, and all the US does by sticking its nose in business it doesn't belong in, is breed more terror, and more hatred of the US. Fighting in the region is counter productive. Fighting for either side on a religious war is even more counter productive.

Kenyan Embassy USS Cole 9/11 not once, but twice Pan Am Flight# 103 Boston Bombing Fort Hood Shooting Benghazi

And that's just the tip of the iceberg... Doesn't matter what we do, they will never let up, never stop, they will always try to kill us no matte what. The difference is, we will always have more fire power then they do and if you feel sorry for them, fine! I sure don't.

At home? Are you trying to blame 9-11 on ISIS? And if your citizens abroad weren't where they shouldn't be, they couldn't be 'slaughtered'.

No, but they are practicing radical Islam, are they not? I rest my case. We weren't anywhere during 9/11 and in Kenya and look what happened. Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

You are obviously clueless as to how oil prices work. If your comment was relevant, than the prices of oil in the middle east would not affect the US whatsoever.

I do. It's what the market dictates, OPEC sets it up and NOT does affect Europe more and as the US is producing more and more oil, thank God! We have a lot less to worry about from these crazy countries.

And yet Americans have been attacked in every country in the world over time. I saw an American get beat up just three months ago.

According to you this is an attack on the US, and the American military should be waging war against Japan right now.

Then anyone that does that to a person just because of his or her religion, nationality or race is the lowest life form in the Universe. That person probably has the intellect of a chick pea. I can't speak for that individual who got the beating, but I grew up half of my life in Europe and I can say this, everyone in my neighborhood know I was half and that I am American and proud to be one and NO one to this day has ever tried to beat the crap out of me, but then again, most people wouldn't have the guts to do it. I'm a big guy and my size alone intimidates people. Japan?? Dude, relax....

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The president of the United States seems to have super powers to handle emergency situations such as the one in question here and may resort to extreme actions as he deems fit!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Please president Mr.Obama, your idea to take congressional approval is indeed a wise step, after all you need not open two fronts one with congress later too, as they can sit n fence in what way things move. so ideal please take congressional approval as suggested by Illinois senator suggested.

always of doctrine of limitation applies that is one sanction cannot be omnibus is my view!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So we have it from senior U.S. Government officials that this is officially a war?

... excellent. Then I'd like the Hague to pursue charges against Bush, Obama and every single senior U.S. military figure for their repeated and flagrant breaches of the Geneva Convention and other articles of war.

... But if it isn't war then please stop calling it that. Call it what it really is, the U.S. illegally invading another sovereign nation.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

In the old days they had to send riders like Paul Revere around on horseback to communicate that there'd been an attack. And notice overseas would take a few months.

It's not the old days, and no reason besides future electability for Congress not to take responsibility.

If Congress could give the President 60-day leeway, they could also give him 2-day leeway. President would be more reluctant to act if he knows he could be reversed in 2 days. Congress would be less reluctant to act, once they've reversed the President once or twice, over history.

In fact, now that we have teleconference and pagers and staffs full of aides, how long would it take Congress to establish a quorum via telepresence? Hour or two? Everybody got their device on their person, how about 15 minutes to establish a quorum?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@frungy

So we have it from senior U.S. Government officials that this is officially a war?

Seriously? There is an election around the corner, Democrats are exactly where Republicans were in 2007 and NOW something is happening that is their worst fear and they thought would never happen to them is having to go to war and possibly having to take a vote and authorizing it, so in order to NOT make it look TOO obvious, the White House changed the language "Limited air bombing campaign" He is trying to build a coalition (good luck with that, never happen for this guy, you need to know what your doing and no country trusts him like that) He said, NO boots on the ground, BUT there ARE boots on the ground, tries to use words like incursion, instead of invasion, doesn't want to use "Terrorist or terrorism, Jihadist, radical Islamists" for some reason Obama thinks that most Americans are stupid and by changing the language, you can pass the war, by changing the words in that language and bypass congress, also Dems are worried about their own survival and their constituents in this midterm. Now the chickens are really coming home to roost for the Dems.

... excellent. Then I'd like the Hague to pursue charges against Bush, Obama and every single senior U.S. military figure for their repeated and flagrant breaches of the Geneva Convention and other articles of war.

Yeah, keep dreaming. The Hague is as equally a joke as the UN. Whatever....

... But if it isn't war then please stop calling it that. Call it what it really is, the U.S. illegally invading another sovereign nation.

It is a war, but the Obama admin. will never admit it, at least for now. And the Iraq was wasn't illegal. Check UN article Resolution 1441.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites