Article from For Liberty by Norm Leahy.
A years-long congressional effort to reign-in a president’s ability to commit U.S. forces to foreign action without first consulting Congress has continually fallen short of its goal. But a new document from the Republican Study Committee says it’s time to make a change.
Critics, however, say the RSC’s changes will only make matters worse.
The proposal, “Strengthening America & Countering Global Threats” says that congressional resolutions passed in 2001 and 2002 giving a president the authorization to use military force (AUMFs) have outlived their initial purposes, and are constitutionally suspect.
However, the group proposes to pass new AUMFs that will give future presidents a blank check to conduct foreign wars as they see fit.
The Cato Institute’s Gene Healy writes that such a broad surrender of congressional authority is “the most ridiculous proposal I’ve ever seen,” noting that under the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, the United States is currently “engaged in combat operations in some 14 countries, bombing half a dozen of them on a semi‐regular basis.”
Under the RSC proposal, a future president would be able to mount military operations without congressional approval against a State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The list currently includes 67 groups in 30 countries – some of which, Healy notes, have not been active for decades.
wpDiscuz
We don’t need to conduct more endless wars. We need to get out of the endless wars we are in
I strongly believe that tying the president’s hands in this way in a true, unexpected emergency is dangerous. The US Congress has hundreds of members and given their record in decision making, empowering them in this way, will endanger the nation when immediate action is needed. even though eventual authorization by US Congress is ensured in most circumstances.
The President should have the ability to conduct vwar as necessary to keep America and safe without congress.
Not a good idea. If you look at how fast we declared war on Japan, then, you see only one congressman said no, on December 8th. It was at the time, the only female member of Congress. She didn’t win reelection. When we were attacked on September 11th, no member of Congress said we shouldn’t go after Bin Laden. If the Chinese communist attack us, it will be hard for even a Democrat to say no to Trump. The people will demand it from their members of Congress.
President Trump certainly isn’t getting “expanded powers”…if anything, he’s having his powers taken AWAY from him. He’s being neutered and emasculated. And if Biden gets fraudulently put into the WhiteHouse, he will be completely controlled TOO.
it would probably be censored
I said it again, FI
I believe that congress should retain the power to enact war. I also think that it should take at least 80 percent of congress to approve any war action. That take the politics out of the approval for any wars. I don’t believe that anyone party would have enough votes to make it happen. I also think that the president should be allowed to respond, to any attack on an American citizens or company, if he chooses. Whether it happens in the United States or a foreign country.
I think President Trump is the best President, I have seen in my 80 years, but i do not believe the president should no more power than the War Powers Act. What would happen if obama was president again? Every war this Country fought was created by a democrat, except for bush, and he was a RINO.