Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

10. That may be the case, but this vote won't change it.

Reply to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 10:37 PM

Sep 2013

I thought I was consistant in saying that Obama would have no less authority than he does now.

If he has zero today then it would remain zero.

If he has tons of authority today he would still have tons of authority.

That's the point of the OP -- that a congressional no vote would be huge politically, but would have no legal effect. Whatever is true today, legally, would remain.

And if, as you say, Congressional authority were required then Obama doesn't have it today, and wouldn't have it after a no vote.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Congress not passing the resolution doesn't change anything, legally [View all] cthulu2016 Sep 2013 OP

You are right, a "Boland Amendment" is needed. David__77 Sep 2013 #1

Congress not passing a resolution means the crime of agressive war is Obama's, not the US' FarCenter Sep 2013 #2

What garbage. Syria is no threat to the US, much less an "emergency." Prezzy cannot act alone. reformist2 Sep 2013 #3

Which part is garbage, exactly? cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #5

Obama needs congressional authorization to take this non-emergency military action. reformist2 Sep 2013 #6

That may be the case, but this vote won't change it. cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #10

What part of War Powers Act gives the President the authority?? kentuck Sep 2013 #4

There is no mechanism for limiting presidential interpretation, hence cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #9

Maybe it's time for the generals to comment on when they would disobey a president's order. reformist2 Sep 2013 #12

Yes legally limited strikes can be done by the Obama Harmony Blue Sep 2013 #7

I dont believe Obama will act on this matter at this time Cryptoad Sep 2013 #8

I like to think that also. cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #11

It means that when things go in the shitter customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #13