Right but they pass laws granting authorization of military use of force, AUMF. That’s the Congressional authority to declare war under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.
If you read the annotations to that clause you will see that the framers intent, traditional interpretation, and certainly modern interpretation are in agreement that the Constitution does not foreclose executive initiated use of force in what would be considered self defense, and that would certainly include the measured and limited destruction of an enemy’s ability to carry out further attacks on US interests, and would certainly cover such defensive measures when done in agreement and in concert with a broad coalition of allies.
Yes, we call those “blank checks” to the executive branch. The Germans even have a word for it. We did it with Vietnam and it did not go well. One would have thought the generation in Congress would have learned their lesson given most of them lived through that shitshow.
It goes without saying that military resources can defend themselves when fired upon, there’s plenty of precedent going back well before the formation of the US. The AUMFs were not that. They were very clearly blank checks to wage literal wars anywhere the executive desired while providing the flimsiest of evidence - and Shrub did just that. See: Iraq.
Merely an overly large check. There are limits, and we need the executive branch to be able to respond to urgent threats - the War Powers Act seems to do that.
the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which further requires that presidents not only report to Congress within 48 hours when they deploy U.S. armed forces into hostilities without congressional authorization but also end U.S. participation in those hostilities within 60 to 90 days if Congress does not authorize it after the fact.
Then people here are complaining about A U Military Force but I only see such a thing specifying Iraq. Iraq can’t be pulled into every possibility yeah, I agree Congress needs to get its shit together and constrain or repeal - the Iraq conflict that was created for is done.
Meanwhile, the response to the Houthi terrorism/piracy seems exactly what these regulations provide for
And the “terrorism” one is actually textually targeted at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. It’s not even itself overly broad, it’s just been twisted into a global war on terror because the executives want to do that and no one stopped them.
Right but they pass laws granting authorization of military use of force, AUMF. That’s the Congressional authority to declare war under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.
If you read the annotations to that clause you will see that the framers intent, traditional interpretation, and certainly modern interpretation are in agreement that the Constitution does not foreclose executive initiated use of force in what would be considered self defense, and that would certainly include the measured and limited destruction of an enemy’s ability to carry out further attacks on US interests, and would certainly cover such defensive measures when done in agreement and in concert with a broad coalition of allies.
Yes, we call those “blank checks” to the executive branch. The Germans even have a word for it. We did it with Vietnam and it did not go well. One would have thought the generation in Congress would have learned their lesson given most of them lived through that shitshow.
It goes without saying that military resources can defend themselves when fired upon, there’s plenty of precedent going back well before the formation of the US. The AUMFs were not that. They were very clearly blank checks to wage literal wars anywhere the executive desired while providing the flimsiest of evidence - and Shrub did just that. See: Iraq.
Merely an overly large check. There are limits, and we need the executive branch to be able to respond to urgent threats - the War Powers Act seems to do that.
Then people here are complaining about A U Military Force but I only see such a thing specifying Iraq. Iraq can’t be pulled into every possibility yeah, I agree Congress needs to get its shit together and constrain or repeal - the Iraq conflict that was created for is done.
Meanwhile, the response to the Houthi terrorism/piracy seems exactly what these regulations provide for
There were two AUMFs. One for “terrorism” and one for Iraq.
And the “terrorism” one is actually textually targeted at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. It’s not even itself overly broad, it’s just been twisted into a global war on terror because the executives want to do that and no one stopped them.
Yes, therein lies the problem. It was a stupid mistake to make and those that voted for it should have known better.
They thought they would just repeal it later.
Go read the War Powers Act. Then tell me what decade long conflict the US has fought in without an AUMF since it was passed.
Go on.
In any event, no authorization from Congress is needed for this sort of strike, which was essentially just shooting back at someone shooting at us.
I’m not in disagreement, that also wasn’t what my initial reply was about.