Rand Paul resolution: Obama violates the Constitution if he attacks Syria without Congress’s approval

posted at 2:01 pm on September 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

I don’t know if there’s a way for him to force Reid to bring this to the floor, but if not, Boehner must — must — include it in the House package.

It’s three paragraphs long so go ahead and read it in full, but this part deserves spotlighting:

rp

Using his own words against him is zestily delicious, but c’mon — you don’t think a gauzy concept like “imminence” is going to stop him, do you? According to O’s drone policy, a bad guy in Al Qaeda is always an “imminent” threat to the U.S. no matter where he is or what he’s doing. He’ll make the same argument about Assad: “Anyone crazy enough to use poison gas is, by definition, an imminent threat.” There will, needless to say, be lots of Clintonian parsing later by Democrats even if something like this passes. Isn’t there always?

But never mind that. Until this morning, I thought the whole point of O going to Congress was that he did want them to have veto power over a Syria strike. That’s his escape hatch from the “red line” nonsense. If they approve an attack, then this is no longer exclusively Obama’s folly. If they reject it, then he gets to drop the Syria hot potato on grounds that his hands are tied and whatever parade of horribles follows in Syria is Congress’s fault. To ask them for authorization, have it denied, and attack anyway would be inexplicable; it would provoke a constitutional crisis needlessly, given that O could have followed his Libya blueprint and attacked first before consulting Congress later. But now that he’s talking about “the world’s red line,” not his own, maybe he thinks he has some sort of international duty — we’ll call it, per his Secretary of State, the “global test” — to enforce the taboo against WMD even if America’s legislature votes no. And let’s be honest: Given the years-long trends in his presidency towards interventionism and executive power grabs, that would be a logical move for him to make. He ignored Congress, as well as his own lawyers, to attack Libya. He refused to enforce ObamaCare’s employer mandate despite it being statutorily required and doesn’t even pretend he has legal authority to do so. What’s left except to declare war unilaterally, with the people’s representatives formally in opposition (and the people themselves heavily opposed)?

If Paul can get Congress to agree that an attack after a no vote would be unconstitutional, that might make things sufficiently politically uncomfortable for O that he’ll have to stand down even if he doesn’t want to. It’ll be a constitutional crisis either way, but having both chambers specify in advance that this is egregiously illegal puts extra pressure on him not to act. Which makes me wonder if he’s counting on a House/Senate split on this. He can probably get to 60 in the Senate with most Democrats voting yes and a handful of GOP hawks joining them. If the vote fails in the House, then he’ll simply say oh well, Congress is gridlocked again, which leaves him no choice but to resolve this stalemate with executive action. (His quote on the employer mandate: “[W]here Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.”) The vote to watch, then, may be the one in the Senate, not the House. If he can get 51 there, which seems likely, then he can claim he had a majority of one chamber at least. If he can’t, things get more difficult for him. Surely there are 51 Democratic hacks willing to swallow hard and protect what’s left of the president’s credibility, no?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ridiculous.

The Kenyan constituation does not require congressional approval.

acyl72 on September 4, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Putin laughs his azz off.

In Sweden obama looked ill.

Putin will finish him off.

Reading of the day

p.s. obama doesn’t care about the constitution. He’s the Supreme Leader

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Why is congress voting on something the president has declared he will not follow?

happytobehere on September 4, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Azzhat Matthews – what would you have said if obama were a Republican…funny how logic works.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Such a tragi-comedy could have never been written, even in fiction.

obama is poison to the USA and the world.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Beware a cornered narcissistic sociopathic snake.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Joe Scarborough and Matthews fancy themselves ‘intelligent’ :)

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM

“What’s left except to declare war unilaterally,…”

His uniform…

… Obowma still has to pick out his Dictator’s uniform.

Seven Percent Solution on September 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Next to “thrill down my leg” Matthews’ “erogenous zones” will not become legendary.

It’s all about politics, not the earnest matter of war, lives, real lives, real American lives.

I so hate all of these talking heads and players. I despise them passionately for considering only how their PC Utopian oaf will look.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM

will not = will now

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM

“Surely there are 51 Democratic hacks willing to swallow hard…”

Chrissy Matthews seems to like the taste…

Seven Percent Solution on September 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Rand Paul resolution: Obama violates the Constitution if he attacks Syria without Congress’s approval

That’s sort of stupid. Rand should just be lobbying for the House to impeach Barky over Libya. I don’t see how he can make this gesture about Syria while ignoring what Barky did in Libya – which then led to disaster and the killings of Americans (including an ambassador for the first time in 30 years).

Man …. these people are just fools. Impeach Barky, already. He’s committed no less than 70 CLEARLY impeachable acts, already. Just pick a few and submit the Articles of Impeachment. At least, lobby that the House get some brains and courage and do the right thing. We’ve already let Barky take down America (we now live in the American Socialist Superstate). When are they going to even try to stop this malevolent retard? With some silly resolution declaring that Barky can’t do something that they just let him do … not to mention having let him get away with Benghazi, dancing on the coffins while he lied his third-world, America-hating azz off …

Sheesh.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 4, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Surely there are 51 Democratic hacks willing to swallow hard and protect what’s left of the president’s credibility, no?

Why, he can’t run again. They all need to watch out for their own hindquarters now.

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM

you don’t think a gauzy concept like “imminence” is going to stop him, do you?

No – imminence doesn’t stop eminence.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Insane Clown Posse

NotCoach on September 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Ridiculous.

The Kenyan constituation does not require congressional approval.

acyl72 on September 4, 2013 at 2:03 PM

More like:

Sukarno never needed to get the parliament’s approval for anything.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM

He ignored Congress, as well as his own lawyers, to attack Libya. He refused to enforce ObamaCare’s employer mandate despite it being statutorily required and doesn’t even pretend he has legal authority to do so. What’s left except to declare war unilaterally, with the people’s representatives formally in opposition (and the people themselves heavily opposed)?

He won and rules like Mugabe just did.

Welcome to the US of Zimbabwe!

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:16 PM

SENSE OF CONGRESS
It is the sense of Congress that if this authorization fails to pass Congress, the President would be in violation of the Constitution if he were to use military force against the Government of Syria

This is interesting but silly. He is attaching a Sense of Congress resolution which would have meaning ONLY if it doesn’t pass. Well, if it doesn’t pass it has no meaning.

Rocks on September 4, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Man this guy has a pair. It’s quite refreshing to see.

gophergirl on September 4, 2013 at 2:17 PM

That picture of Obama always reminds me of little monster Anthony Freemont in the Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a Good Life.”

I think their personalities are similar, too.

Alana on September 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Matthews – what would you have said if obama were a Republican…funny how logic works.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Yeah, the more “bipartisan” one of these people are, the more important labels become. Demonrat Presidents can be trusted to bomb other countries unilaterally but Rupublican Presidents need international coalitions.

You know you’ve won when the question becomes…… The only reason why you are against this is that Obama is black and you can’t stand it he’s President. There is no good response to that kind of racist stupidity.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM

If the vote fails in the House, then he’ll simply say oh well, Congress is gridlocked again, which leaves him no choice but to resolve this stalemate with executive action.

So you’re saying it’s all about political messaging and Rand Paul’s mistake is thinking Obama cares about the Constitution. I can’t see any way to argue against that position.

Fenris on September 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM

LIVE on C-SPAN: House Hearing on Military Force in Syria

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

canopfor on September 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Obama/Kerry has so many openings for vulnerability, and …

this stupid trick gets him a few hand claps at his rallies, but doesn’t advance our cause, and doesn’t add any new Paul followers.

faraway on September 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Obama shoots from the hip with a the ridiculous red line speech and now is ready to risk American lives just to save face.

Al-Queda is playing him like a fool to force his hand.

SouthernGent, from the link in AP’s write up, on Matthews…

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM

0 cred street wise or other left for 0.

Bmore on September 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Rand Paul resolution: Obama violates the Constitution if he attacks Syria without Congress’s approval

Frankly your presentation of this is misleading. This is NOT a separate resolution by Rand. This is an amendment to the bill to authorize force. An amendment which makes a point that the bill must fail for the amendment to have effect. Well, if the bill fails so does any amendment added to it. This is idiotic.

Rocks on September 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM

TED CRUZ: US IS NOT ‘AL-QAEDA’S AIR FORCE’

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/04/Ted-Cruz-US-Is-Not-Al-Qaedas-Air-Force

PATRIOT Ted Cruz stands up, and speaks for AMERICA – as usual.

Go TED!!!

Pork-Chop on September 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Holding Hopeys Hooves to the Political Heat,veddy nice!!!

canopfor on September 4, 2013 at 2:22 PM

TED CRUZ: US IS NOT ‘AL-QAEDA’S AIR FORCE’

The GOP is alive? The GOP is alive?

faraway on September 4, 2013 at 2:22 PM

The only reason why you are against this is that Obama is black and you can’t stand it he’s President. There is no good response to that kind of racist stupidity.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Labels should only bother the true racists. It’s water down my duck back, meh.

Their Utopian oaf is not in shards but rather in the pulverized form.

Beware of such cornered narcissistic sociopaths.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Those eyes, plus on Drudge are demonic.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Not even Liberals believe or support him or Kerry…

Liberals reject Obama’s case for Syria strikes; believe Obama and Kerry are lying

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:24 PM

The only reason why you are against this is that Obama is black and you can’t stand it he’s President. There is no good response to that kind of racist stupidity.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Yes, there is.

‘I love Obama and you’ll never find a truer Democrat than me. But this whole idea of any president of the United States drawing lines saying that if any country does something that he considers wrong, that the nation is going to war, it’s unheard of, drawing a red line. So, of course, it’s embarrassing.’

- Congressman Charlie Rangel

Just quote him. If you’re a racist, then so is Charlie Rangel.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:27 PM

TED CRUZ: US IS NOT ‘AL-QAEDA’S AIR FORCE’

It is if this administration says it is. And Al Qaeda’s Navy and whatever else the President decides.

Congress needs to re-assert (read slap the bastard silly) their Constitutional role in these decisions.

If Americans are going to die in Obama’s third war, it needs to at least be done in a way consistent with our laws not Obama’s approach of “I’ll do whatever the hell I want.”

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:28 PM

TED CRUZ: US IS NOT ‘AL-QAEDA’S AIR FORCE’

He’s actually echoing what Dennis Kucinich said days ago, which shows just how unpopular coming to the defence of the Syrian ‘rebels’ is.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Obama lackeys now go by the term “hawks”?

kunegetikos on September 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Not even Liberals believe or support him or Kerry…

Liberals reject Obama’s case for Syria strikes; believe Obama and Kerry are lying

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:24 PM

But the Dems in Congress will all dutifully line up and vote in favor of killing Syrians even though we don’t know who used sarin gas, what the end state will be, or what the response will be if another 1400 civilians are killed by their government.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Frankly your presentation of this is misleading. This is NOT a separate resolution by Rand. This is an amendment to the bill to authorize force. An amendment which makes a point that the bill must fail for the amendment to have effect. Well, if the bill fails so does any amendment added to it. This is idiotic.

Rocks on September 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Actually, it’s kind of devious. If its part of the act and if the overall resolution fails, then the people who did vote for it are on record saying Obama can’t proceed. And they would be his biggest cheerleaders for going ahead anyway. If it passes then you have a bit of precedent (hopefully, but not really) reigning in future adventurism.

Not that I would expect Rand’s effort to go anywhere.

Fenris on September 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM

The only reason why you are against this is that Obama is black and you can’t stand it he’s President. There is no good response to that kind of racist stupidity.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM

So, you were against the War in Iraq because Bush was white?

faraway on September 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Did you see the smirk on Chrissy’s face when Slow Joe was babbling, they both know that this is nothing more than a face saving move by barky. Disgusting.

D-fusit on September 4, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Obama lackeys now go by the term “hawks”?

kunegetikos on September 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Chickenhawks.

Of the chest thumping kind that think sitting in a situation room in DC gives you bragging rights for “getting” Bin Laden. That your part in the operation was worthy of leaking classified information to the NYT. And, of course, that your boasting is excusable even though SEAL team Six took casualties as a result of your arrogance.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM

So, you were against the War in Iraq because Bush was white?

faraway on September 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Hating whites isn’t racist.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:35 PM

(1) Senator Barack Obama stated correctly to
the Boston Globe in 2007 that ‘‘the President does
not have power under the Constitution to unilater-
ally authorize a military attack in a situation that
does not involve stopping an actual or imminent
threat to the nation’’.

 
Out of context! Out of context!!!

rogerb on September 4, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Hating whites isn’t racist.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Right on, comrade.

faraway on September 4, 2013 at 2:36 PM

You know you’ve won when the question becomes…… The only reason why you are against this is that Obama is black and you can’t stand it he’s President. There is no good response to that kind of racist stupidity.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Happy Nomad:
==============

Fox Guests Clash Over Whether Media Has ‘Double Standard’ Over Bush and Obama’s Wars
by Andrew Kirell | 2:26 pm, September 4th, 2013
***********************************************

his afternoon on Fox, frequent guests Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers battled over whether there is a media “double standard” in treatment for George W. Bush and Barack Obama in their respective military campaigns.

Conservative radio host Crowley insisted the “double standard” exists, pointing to her belief that in the 2003 run-up to the Iraq War, Bush faced tough criticism from a skeptical press. “When you look at the difference of that coverage and President Obama going to Libya without congressional approval and the run-up to Syria, it is like night and day,” she said.

Liberal author Powers disagreed, recalling a much different memory of the early days of the Iraq War. “I remember the media not being skeptical and pretty much banging the drums for war and being supportive of the war,” she said. “I think they have not skeptical enough, they’ve not been skeptical enough with President Obama.” She also took issue with her counterpart’s depiction of the media as “supportive” of the potential Syrian strike.

Powers also lamented the president’s “incoherent” strategy, noting that the United States didn’t necessarily do anything about Iraq’s known use of chemical weapons in the 1980s because they were an ally in a Cold War conflict.

Watch the full segment below, via Fox News:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-guests-clash-over-whether-media-has-double-standard-over-bush-and-obamas-wars/
==============================================

https://twitter.com/mediaite

canopfor on September 4, 2013 at 2:39 PM

He’s actually echoing what Dennis Kucinich said days ago, which shows just how unpopular coming to the defence of the Syrian ‘rebels’ is.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Can we stop calling them rebels? They are the band of oppressive Islamists currently not in charge of Syria. One of the biggest lies in all of this was the McCain/Kerry skit yesterday that purported the “rebels” to be mostly Jeffersonian democrats with a few bad seeds. They also claimed that the government of Syria had secular roots which, if true, is a great reason to keep the current dictator in place instead of toppling secular dictators for religious ones (Egypt, Libya).

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:40 PM

A little off topic but I’m getting a feeling that Putin is going to play a trump card during the G20 summit and and put the final nail in this charade. It’ll only work if the Senate holds off on the vote for a few days.

Makes you wonder what the rush is in the Senate if the House won’t be back until next week.

WisRich on September 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Scarborough makes Mathews his own news story.

God help us all. Especially the 65 actual viewers of Morning Slow.

patman77 on September 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM

canopfor on September 4, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Liberal author Powers disagreed, recalling a much different memory of the early days of the Iraq War. “I remember the media not being skeptical and pretty much banging the drums for war and being supportive of the war,” she said. “I think they have not skeptical enough, they’ve not been skeptical enough with President Obama.” She also took issue with her counterpart’s depiction of the media as “supportive” of the potential Syrian strike.

I like Kirstin Powers. On many issues she is a moderate leftist voice in a sea of stupidity. But I have to wonder what planet she was living on at the start of the Iraq war and what more the MSM could do in drumming up a war for Obama before she’d call it supportive.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Obama is now using Sharia law in the White House. Sharia law does not require one to go to Congress for approval on anything….

albill on September 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Makes you wonder what the rush is in the Senate if the House won’t be back until next week.

WisRich on September 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Trying to lay down a marker. Permisison for 90 days of spiteful bombing so that anything close to zero in the House can be portrayed as “unreasonable.”

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Going to war must be one of those “positive rights” things that the government “must do for the people”.

Dexter_Alarius on September 4, 2013 at 2:49 PM

a few days ago i looked into the various opposition parties in Syria. People from all over the region are involved. The Free Syrian Army appears to be a mercenary outfit with people from as far away as Kosovo in it.

The Emirates and Qatar are funding the FSA. Others have connections to the MB and yet others are porring in under the black flag of you know who

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/09/video-hundreds-of-qaeda-fighters-head-for-syria.html

Given the interests of oil-rich states like Qatar I thought at the time that we ourselves may be little more that mercenaries in this battle…then today i read this

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab counties offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

I’m sure that there are people in the world who see our village of idiots in DC and our every so good military…and start scheming

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

r keller on September 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Can we stop calling them rebels? They are the band of oppressive Islamists currently not in charge of Syria. One of the biggest lies in all of this was the McCain/Kerry skit yesterday that purported the “rebels” to be mostly Jeffersonian democrats with a few bad seeds. They also claimed that the government of Syria had secular roots which, if true, is a great reason to keep the current dictator in place instead of toppling secular dictators for religious ones (Egypt, Libya).

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:40 PM

That’s why I put the word in quotes.

This is my take: America Has No National Interests In Syria & There’s No Guarantee That Our Intervention Will Make Things Any Better…For Anyone.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/friedman-arm-and-shame.html?ref=opinion

Oddly enough, Tom Friedman seems to have some sane stuff to say on the subject.

Basically, bombing will just give the world teams to root for. And they are not likely to root for us.

But arming the opposition and maybe splitting the country up… letting different groups rule different parts.

And shaming the Assads… I didn’t read that part, I don’t understand it really.

But honestly, some ideas like this could be much more helpful than just bombing them. And might stand a chance of international support.

petunia on September 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Scarborough makes Mathews his own news story.

patman77 on September 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Like a couple of cats chasing each others tail.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Flash: Al-Qaeda Linked Syrian Rebels Attack Christian Village

That’s who Obama, Kerry, and Senator Senile want to back.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Obama is so far ahead of the Republicans for the simple reason that he’s dealing in a consuming bad faith they cannot comprehend (and don’t want to, as evidenced through Rand Paul and how he insistently talks about trying to be proud of his president) and even if they did wouldn’t have the balls to openly confront in the media culture.

There is no possibility as I see that they can close this vector of incomprehension and non-confrontation before Obama leads us to the kind of full-bore disaster which can no longer be scumbled by the media and which engulfs us all.

There is no good end to this.

rrpjr on September 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM

This is my take: America Has No National Interests In Syria & There’s No Guarantee That Our Intervention Will Make Things Any Better…For Anyone.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM

And, seems to be a minor point with the administration, those sailors are going to be put in harms way with no guarantee that Syria can’t strike back. You’t think the filthy bastard would at least mention concern for them once in a while.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Flash: Al-Qaeda Linked Syrian Rebels Attack Christian Village

That’s who Obama, Kerry, and Senator Senile want to back.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Just going door-to-door handing out copies of the US Constitution and asking them if they’ve come to know Jeffersonian democracy. I’m sure.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Rumor has it, that Congress may pass on any vote on military action.

This is how the Dims and their pals the Republicans, will shirk the responsibility, and will essentially give tacit approval to Obama to do whatever he wants to do, while at the same time, taking any blame on Obama for the fallout, and disintegrating that blame into nothing.

After all, Obama turned it over to Congress, but they refused to take it up, so Obama will be given a pass by the State-Run media and the huge majority of Dimopublicans in Congress.

Meople on September 4, 2013 at 3:00 PM

WTF.

Sen Johnson was on Greta last night saying he was a “No” on authorization.

Right now in committee, offered an amendment and then said he wanted to co-sponsor the resolution.

????????

WisRich on September 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Why isn’t anyone asking, “Where’s the chemicals being stored?” We have the “best intelligence community in the world”, which has no problem bugging everyone and everything around. We can say that we will bomb the storage facilities and let the war continue on even footing. We would eliminate the problem, but not become part of the problem.

djaymick on September 4, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Boehner must — must — include it in the House package.

As if.

Boehner will do nothing of the sort; all he’s going to ever do is bend over and spread his cheeks for Obama.

Midas on September 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM

well, then there’s this too…the Arabs are willing to [pony up but the pro Israeli groups are gung ho too

Obama made the same argument Aug. 30 on a 30-minute conference call with 1,000 rabbis. Obama conducts such a call annually. This time, at the White House’s request, Syria was the topic of the first question, asked by Rabbi Gerald Skolnik of the Forest Hills Jewish Center in Queens, president of the Rabbinical Assembly, the association of Conservative rabbis.

While Iran wasn’t mentioned in the call, it was viewed by participants as part of the context of the president’s remarks. ‘We have a very strong stake in the world taking seriously our insistence that weapons of mass destruction should not proliferate,” said one of those on the call, Rabbi Rick Block, president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, a New York-based organization of Reform rabbis.

The support Obama is getting from pro-Israel groups in the U.S. is important because of their history of political influence. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish groups have long helped secure continued U.S. aid to Israel, mobilizing activists who visit or call lawmakers. The effort is supplemented by several political action committees that donate to candidates depending on their support for Israel.

the obvious solution to all this is that the Arab states and Israel (all of whom have armies) form a Coalition, and fix their problem that way

r keller on September 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM

WTF.

Sen Johnson was on Greta last night saying he was a “No” on authorization.

Right now in committee, offered an amendment and then said he wanted to co-sponsor the resolution.

????????

WisRich on September 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM

I suspect a number of folks are getting calls from the IRS, NSA, etc, with ‘suggestions’ as to how they vote and what might happen if they don’t vote correctly.

Midas on September 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM

The resolution passed in the Senate, I fear it will be a done deal in Congress as well…

sandee on September 4, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Funny none of you made this argument when Bush was droning nations…

Kaptain Amerika on September 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Paul is overplaying his hand again.

KBird on September 4, 2013 at 3:45 PM

The political class will move to protect Obama. They are the political class, and Obama is class president.

The Democrats in the Senate and the House will vote yes, as Obama’s ineptitude and failures are they’re failures. They will move to protect him in order to protect the brand, and thereby, their own careers and ambitions.

The GOP will give up just enough votes to pass it. They will do this because the Democrats failures on key issues, AMNESTY, OBAMACARE, and foreign policy itself, because they’ve been complicit to and colluded in these disastrous policies and laws. They have become complicit in these failures, either through direct support of progressive policy, such as AMNESTY which contributes directly to millions of Americans being unemployed or chronically underemployed, or through inaction, such as a failure to defund or repeal Obamacare. The GOP has been complicit in the disastrous foreign policy that has catapulted the middle east into perpetual war, allowing this president to wage on open war via drones against any target on his personal list.The GOP are complicit for allowing a president to openly bypass congress in clear violation of separation of powers provided in the constitution and legislation from his desk. They have enabled this Imperial President.

This ‘crisis’ is about far more than Syria, the middle east, or foreign policy. It is reveals the collusion of the political class to further their own interests rather than those of the citizens of this nation, both on a party level and one of individual ambition, on both sides of the aisle.

thatsafactjack on September 4, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Funny none of you made this argument when Bush was droning nations…

Kaptain Amerika on September 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Obama’s droned more Arabs than Bush ever thought about droning.

Come to think of it, he’s droned more Americans than Bush ever thought about droning also.

You can’t equivocate Iraq (regime change) and Afghanistan (war on terror) with Syria (neither regime change, nor war on terror, or any other threat to the U.S.), so just don’t even try.

Meople on September 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Funny none of you made this argument when Bush was droning nations…
 
Kaptain Amerika on September 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM

 
Of course we did. It’s why we as a nation elected this guy:
 

“the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”
 
- Barack Obama, 2007

rogerb on September 4, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Senate-crafted Syria resolution riddled with loopholes for Obama

We have to fight the war in order to find out what is in it.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 3:57 PM

they’re …their.

thatsafactjack on September 4, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Ridiculous.
The Kenyan constituation does not require congressional approval.
acyl72 on September 4, 2013 at 2:03 PM

It’s not even in the Sharia.
So where’s Obama coming from?

On the other, strangely, hand Obama in ’07 assured us that “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Biden, also a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, said he would move to impeach President Bush if he unilaterally attacked Iran because of its nuclear programs.

So if he does strike can we expect Biden to call for impeachment?

This is a clowns circus of liars totally deserving of zero credibility.

Chessplayer on September 4, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Senator Obama and Rand Paul are completely wrong and ignorant on this issue of course. Boehner is responsible enough to not allow this in there so you can forget it.

If actually interested in what “declare war” meant to the Founders and their actual views on this issue you should read this from Robert Turner.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/08/why-the-war-powers-resolution-isnt-a-key-factor-in-the-syria-situation/

War Powers and the Founding Fathers
On August 17, 1787, James Madison moved in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to strike the term “make war” and give Congress instead the far narrower power “to declare War.” The motion carried with but a single negative vote. “Declare War” was a term of art from the Law of Nations, and was only viewed as necessary when a country was about to launch an all-out “perfect” aggressive war. Defensive war and “force short of war” were not constrained.

As Hugo Grotius—often referred to as the “father” of modern international law—observed in his 1620 treatise, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, no declaration of war was necessary when a State was “repelling an invasion, or seeking to punish the actual author of some crime.”

In his first Pacificus essay in 1793, Alexander Hamilton observed that “the power of the Legislature to declare war” was an “exception” to the general “executive power” vested in the President by Article II, Section 1, and thus was to be “construed strictly.” This was the interpretation of that clause embraced earlier by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Jay, John Marshall, and many others.

Although it will surprise many readers today, in a February 1804 memorandum to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, President Jefferson explained the original practice:

“The Constitution has made the Executive the organ for managing our intercourse with foreign nations . . . . From the origin of the present government to this day . . . it has been the uniform opinion and practice that the whole foreign fund was placed by the Legislature on the footing of a contingent fund, in which they undertake no specifications, but leave the whole to the discretion of the President.”

That same month, Chief Justice John Marshall (Jefferson’s political enemy) wrote in perhaps the most famous Supreme Court opinion in our history (Marbury v. Madison):

“By the Constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion. . . . [W]hatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and, being entrusted to the Executive, the decision of the Executive is conclusive.”

To illustrate the point, Marshall referred to the statute creating the Department of Foreign Affairs (now State), explaining that the Secretary’s duties were “to conform precisely to the will of the President.”

It was widely understood by the Framers that Congress couldn’t keep secrets, so early appropriations bills expressly provided: “[T]he President shall account specifically for all such expenditures of the said money as in his judgment may be made public, and also for the amount of such expenditures as he may think it advisable not to specify . . . .” The Framers would have been shocked at the idea of congressional “intelligence committees” demanding sensitive national security secrets, which are a product of the post-Vietnam era.

Indeed, in Federalist No. 64, John Jay explained that sources of valuable foreign intelligence information would be willing to confide in “the secrecy of the president,” but not in that of the Senate or House, and thus the Constitution had properly “left the president able to manage the business of intelligence in such matter as prudence may suggest.”

jp on September 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Funny none of you made this argument when Bush was droning nations…

Kaptain Amerika on September 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Nice try. It’s your crap sandwich. Eat it. Maybe some catsup will help you get it down.

rrpjr on September 4, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Funny none of you made this argument when Bush was droning nations…

Kaptain Amerika on September 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM

None of us? Really…?

JohnGalt23 on September 4, 2013 at 4:33 PM

If one wants to destroy the middle East, just send over the liberal democrats to put the Detroit big city gubmint policies into effect. No need to bomb Syria. Just drop Mayor Coleman Young and his cohorts into the middle east, stuff the ballot boxes like the dems are famous for, and voila, the middle east is toast.

they lie on September 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM

call and email your senators and congressmen/women and tell them to vote NO on any military intervention in Syria. I know Toomey is in favor of it but when I called his office to tell him to vote NO they said he (Tommey) had received 187 NO calls this afternoon and 2 YES calls.
Let them know that the safe vote for them is a NO vote if they want to keep their constituents happy.

gracie on September 4, 2013 at 4:42 PM

jp on September 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM

I don’t have to read it. I’ve read the minutes from the Constitutional Convention, the Founders statements before their state legislatures, and both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

Congress has the power to declare war and the POTUS doesn’t get to decide what the meaning of the word ‘war’ is.

Oh, and listen up! You can trot out everyone in the Reagan administration. Such is not garlic and sunlight with me.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power…

[To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions

If Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 gave the CinC the sole authority to decide when and where to use the military against foreign states, especially, there would be no need for the above.

If a President believes he can, unilaterally, do whatever he wants with OUR (not ‘his’) military, then he needs to declare martial law, suspend the COTUS, and see how that works out for him.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Obama violates the Constitution if he attacks Syria without Congress’s approval

Never stopped him before….and the wimp RINO’s never do anything about it.

Christian Conservative on September 4, 2013 at 6:42 PM