Posted: 11/18/2015 11:51:06 AM EDT
|
Is there a way possibly that Congress could go around Obama and commit troops to Syria without needing his authorization? I know it would never happen, but is it legally possible? |
|
Quoted: Eh, not really. I mean, I suppose they could declare war on IS, which would mean giving them recognition, at least in a way, but said declaration wouldn't force the President to do anything different really. Congress couldn't appoint a General to command an element to fight in Syria? Or all that still must go through the Commander-in-Chief? |
|
At first blush, I don't think so.
Congress can declare a state of war, but I don't think they can direct any sort of military asset. I suppose theoretically a POTUS's refusal to engage our military in an officially declared war would probably b a pretty easy case for impeachment. |
|
Quoted:
Congress couldn't appoint a General to command an element to fight in Syria? Or all that still must go through the Commander-in-Chief? Quoted:
Quoted:
Eh, not really. I mean, I suppose they could declare war on IS, which would mean giving them recognition, at least in a way, but said declaration wouldn't force the President to do anything different really. Congress couldn't appoint a General to command an element to fight in Syria? Or all that still must go through the Commander-in-Chief? From a strict reading of the Constitution, yes, they could appoint a general and raise an army, but A) they would still be under the command of the Commander in Chief, and B) exactly what is a fresh-minted army going to be good for in this day and age? |
|
Quoted:
From a strict reading of the Constitution, yes, they could appoint a general and raise an army, but A) they would still be under the command of the Commander in Chief, and B) exactly what is a fresh-minted army going to be good for in this day and age? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eh, not really. I mean, I suppose they could declare war on IS, which would mean giving them recognition, at least in a way, but said declaration wouldn't force the President to do anything different really. Congress couldn't appoint a General to command an element to fight in Syria? Or all that still must go through the Commander-in-Chief? From a strict reading of the Constitution, yes, they could appoint a general and raise an army, but A) they would still be under the command of the Commander in Chief, and B) exactly what is a fresh-minted army going to be good for in this day and age? fresh minted armies won just about every war up until Vietnam. |
|
From a practical standpoint they could attach language revoking his "authority" for what he's doing now and attach it to a must pass bill. When he doesn't sign it, have the balls to do a shutdown while also negotiating. "We'll pull that rider IF you put in ground troops."
That being said, FBHO but I'm not sure ground troops are the answer. The main problem is the Administration's insistence that Assad has to go. The White House so loathes foreign policy that once they make a decision, they stick with it regardless of changing circumstances. So I think a better legislative action would be to forbid the administration from spending ANY money on anything that would topple Assad for, say, 2 years. Sure, bomb the fuck out of Isis, arm insurgents, but don't choose who to arm based on whether they want Assad gone or not. It may be stupid idea, but what we are doing now is both stupid AND counterproductive. And nothing will happen anyway, because the Democrats will not, under any circumstances, go against Obama. |
|
Quoted:
fresh minted armies won WWII Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eh, not really. I mean, I suppose they could declare war on IS, which would mean giving them recognition, at least in a way, but said declaration wouldn't force the President to do anything different really. Congress couldn't appoint a General to command an element to fight in Syria? Or all that still must go through the Commander-in-Chief? From a strict reading of the Constitution, yes, they could appoint a general and raise an army, but A) they would still be under the command of the Commander in Chief, and B) exactly what is a fresh-minted army going to be good for in this day and age? fresh minted armies won WWII No, no they did not. Massively expanded armies and navies did though. A brand new army, in the late 1700s, could be raised, equipped with the weapons of the day, trained in their employment, and sent to the field in relatively short order under relatively inexperienced officers who were well read and educated, and have a fair chance of success. This is no longer the case, and has not been true since the 1880s in Europe, and the early 20th century in general. Expanding an existing force is one thing, as the existing force has the training and institutional memory and knowledge to absorb new elements and fit them into the existing structure. Creating a brand new force out of nothing is a very different proposition, and is not going to result in a force you can readily or effectively use, unless you plan on using it in a manner manifestly contrary to the laws of war. |
|
No. The President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Even if Congress declared war they can't force the President to follow any particular strategy.
That's by design. The idea is to make one guy accountable for the outcome. War by a committee with diffuse responsibility would be a disaster. |
|
Quoted:
No. The President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Even if Congress declared war they can't force the President to follow any particular strategy. That's by design. The idea is to make one guy accountable for the outcome. War by a committee with diffuse responsibility would be a disaster. See the Battle of France for reference. |