Rep. Massie: Introduced Amendment to Block Unauthorized U.S. Military Involvement in Syria & Egypt

Can you believe this man had the foresight to introduce this amendment back in the beginning of JULY? You can bet he will be attempting this again when Congress is back in session.

Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) teamed up with other representatives across the aisle to force Obama to AT LEAST get congressional approval before authorizing military force.

Who remembers Senator Joe Biden calling for an impeachment if President Bush moved on Iran without congressional approval? Where is Joe Biden now that his buddy is in the exact same spot with Syria?



massie.house.gov...

“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.

And yes, Thomas Massie is a Liberty/Ron Paul Republican, seems like one of the very few types of elected officials doing anything worth a damn these days.

This was a worthy effort on the Reps part but it doesn't mean anything. Obama has made it clear, when it comes to attacking other countries he only listens to the UN. Or in this case if the UN flakes out on him then he only takes orders from NATO.

(And if NATO flakes out... well in his mind laws don't apply to him anyway.)

Originally posted by Bassago
This was a worthy effort on the Reps part but it doesn't mean anything.

Yes I get what you're saying but if none of any of it means anything, why even bother posting? That is what we call, giving up on life and what is right.

Just because you know the establishment will step on us without flinching, doesn't mean we don't speak up, doesn't mean we don't go out there and hold that sign, doesn't mean we don't make that phone call, and it damn well doesn't mean we don't introduce that amendment to try and stop it.

Rep. Justin Amash, another 'Ron Paul Republican' thought he was going to get trampled on with his amendment to defund the NSA, little did he know he was actually 12 votes from accomplishing that. Would we ever have known how close he would come if he never tried? Right... 'it doesn't mean anything.'

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.

www.washingtonpost.com...

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.

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?

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?

I'm not arguing against what this rep or your post is saying, I'm saying I honestly don't understand, and me, the dummy in the corner, needs someone to explain it to her like she's slow. Unless of course, I'm not missing anything.

reply to post by eLPresidente
It is a good point and I applaud the good senator -

But, you've got those rinos - mccain and graham - running to egypt and trying to reinstate the MB -

You've got the supreme court blackmailed into letting obamocare come in as a "tax".

I don't see my WI senator signing his name to that letter - that is a point, too.

There's also the point, Do they even count our votes, anymore?

Thanks for posting this info.

he is a CAR CRASH waiting to happen.

Regardless of what anyone wants to happen, what probably is going to happen, is we are going to strike Syria, be retaliated against and possibly start a World War.

Regardless of what anyone wants to happen, what probably is going to happen, is we are going to strike Syria, be retaliated against and possibly start a World War.

Depending on how this plays out, I might recommend finding somewhere to live besides the city, or leaving