What Is the Consequence of a War Without Congressional Authorization?
Call me schizophrenic. Call me an extremist. You can recall that I'm supportive of air strikes to punish Syrian dictator Bashir Assad for using chemical weapons -- as long as we're sure his side used the chemical weapons and that he ordered the launch.
But if a president were to A) take military action against Syria without seeking a resolution authorizing military action or B) Congress rejected the resolution, but he went ahead anyway . . .Would that be grounds for impeachment? Probably not. There's some precedent for this sort of thing:
The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in 1973 requires that the president seek consent from Congress before force is used, or within 60 days of the start of hostilities. It also says the president must provide Congress with reports throughout the conflict.
Since 1973, the United States has used military force in Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 1991, Haiti in 1994 and Kosovo in 1999. In all those instances, presidents -- both Democrats and Republicans -- sidestepped Congress and committed U.S. military forces without obtaining congressional approval.
No comments:
Post a Comment