It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“The Constitution prohibits the President from unilaterally spending American taxpayer dollars on military operations without congressional approval”
WASHINGTON – Representative Massie offered two amendments to the House Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397) requiring congressional authorization to use taxpayer funds for military or paramilitary purposes in Syria and Egypt.
“Since our national security interests in Syria and Egypt are unclear, we risk giving money and military assistance to our enemies,” said Rep. Massie. “The Constitution prohibits the President from unilaterally spending American taxpayer dollars on military operations without congressional approval. The American people deserve an open debate and an up-or-down vote by their elected officials on these important issues.”
The bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Reps Schrader (D-OR), Amash (R-MI), Yoho (R-FL), would block unauthorized funding of military or paramilitary operations in Syria. Massie’s second amendment, cosponsored by Reps Amash and Yoho, would block unauthorized funding of military or paramilitary operations in Egypt.
Originally posted by Bassago
This was a worthy effort on the Reps part but it doesn't mean anything.
Dear Mr. President,
We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate – and the active engagement of Congress – prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.
Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in “hostilities.” In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:
“…President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization.”
We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional. If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute “hostilities,” what does?
If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.
Sincerely,
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.)
Rep. Scott Rigell (VA-02)
Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-5)
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Rep. Tom Marino (PA-10)
Rep. Dan Benishek, M.D (MI-01)
Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-17)
Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Rep. Tim Griffin (AR-2)
Rep Justin Amash (MI-03)
Rep. Raul Labrabor (ID-01)
Rep. Joseph Pitts (PA-16)
Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-8)
Rep. John Campbell (CA-45)
Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Rep. Charles Boustany (LA-03)
Rep. Tom Cole (OK-04)
“The letter will be sent Wednesday at noon,” reports Politico.
This article was posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Originally posted by Ameilia
reply to post by eLPresidente
In all seriousness, since it is already illegal for a President to attack a country without congressional approval, what is the point of this amendment? It's great we have a congressman willing to step up and do something, but what he is hoping to accomplish (besides making a point) I don't understand.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Originally posted by Ameilia
reply to post by eLPresidente
In all seriousness, since it is already illegal for a President to attack a country without congressional approval, what is the point of this amendment? It's great we have a congressman willing to step up and do something, but what he is hoping to accomplish (besides making a point) I don't understand.
I agree with you but some would spew the BS argument that the Constitution is a living document, we're going to let Syria turn into another Nazi Germany kills the Jews situation, even though it isn't true.
I'd imagine if there was a vote, Obama wouldn't defy congress like that, it would be national news and his approval rating would continue to plummet?