AUMF - Athorized Use of Military Force

[bernorange 8377]

I expect most peeps here know that Congress has completely abdicated their Constitutional duty to check the Executive Branch with respect to the application of military force abroad (without a formal declaration of war from Congress).  Congress abdicates their responsibility with the AUMF legislation, the Authorized Use of Military Force.  It's a blank check gift to the President to conduct war carte blanche.  The AUMF is up for renewal.

Quote

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) announced today that on Wednesday, June 6th, he will be holding a hearing on the enormous costs of the endless wars which continue to be fought under the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed after the 9/11 attacks. 

According to a press release from Paul's office, the hearing "will explore both the financial impact and the constitutional implications of open-ended war under the existing Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and examine the potential ramifications if Congress adopts the revised AUMF proposed by Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA)."
...
The Corker/Kaine revised AUMF is sold as Congress finally waking up to its Constitutional war obligations, but as Sen. Paul has noted in a letter to his Senate colleagues, "it is clear upon reading that the Kaine/Corker AUMF gives nearly unlimited power to this or any President to be at war anywhere, anytime and against anyone, with minimal justification and no prior specific authority."

By many estimates, Iraq and Afghanistan alone have cost the American taxpayer close to $3 trillion with no end in sight and no "victory" in sight. That does not include money spent to overthrow and murder Libya's Gaddafi, to raise an army of jihadists to overthrow Assad in Syria, and to expand the US military presence to 50 out of 53 African countries. And, of course, to backstop Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.

Sen. Paul's hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management will take place on June 6th at 2:30 p.m. eastern time in SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2018/june/04/sen-paul-to-hold-hearing-on-unauthorized-war-s-effect-on-federal-spending/

Does it matter?

[Viper 12160]

it should matter but it probably won't. The Dems taking over in 2008 pretty much killed the anti-war movement.

[Captainant 28004]

Nobody will touch the AUMF. Too much pork barrel for constituents wrapped up in US military action

[Anastasis 23520]

Just now, Viper said:

it should matter but it probably won't. The Dems taking over in 2008 pretty much killed the anti-war movement.

All the "Stop War Now" signs on my block disappeared almost overnight. 

[JohnnyRage 1617]

What was wrong about President Obama seeking authorization from congress to strike Assad's forces after using chemical weapons in Syria?

[Viper 12160]

43 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

What was wrong about President Obama seeking authorization from congress to strike Assad's forces after using chemical weapons in Syria?

I thought I remembered him saying he didn't need to legally, but other than that, nothing was wrong with following the constitution and asking congress for approval.

[Fozzz 152]

I think he was ambivalent with intervening in that manner and sought authorization so he wouldn't be the only one on the hook.  It's not like he had a problem funneling weapons and training rebels (including extremists) through the CIA with Timber Sycamore.  

[Huckleberry 33676]

Yeah, it was a chickenshit move to avoid bearing the blame if things went wrong. It was the political equivalent of figuring out where to go eat dinner with your wife. She acts like she doesn't care but then shoots down five hundred options until you eventually say the one she wanted all along. That way when the service sucks or the food is bad she can give you that look to let you know it's your fault.

Or so I've heard.

[David Dennison 19140]

On this issue, I agree with Rand Paul 100%. The AUMF is patently unconstitutional.

[JBJ 3721]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah, it was a chickenshit move to avoid bearing the blame if things went wrong. It was the political equivalent of figuring out where to go eat dinner with your wife. She acts like she doesn't care but then shoots down five hundred options until you eventually say the one she wanted all along. That way when the service sucks or the food is bad she can give you that look to let you know it's your fault.

Or so I've heard.

It was also the right thing to do.  The responsibility is supposed to belong to congress.

[Viper 12160]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah, it was a chickenshit move to avoid bearing the blame if things went wrong.

but, isn't that one of the reasons for having to ask congress to begin with?

[F250 28991]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah, it was a chickenshit move to avoid bearing the blame if things went wrong. It was the political equivalent of figuring out where to go eat dinner with your wife. She acts like she doesn't care but then shoots down five hundred options until you eventually say the one she wanted all along. That way when the service sucks or the food is bad she can give you that look to let you know it's your fault.

Or so I've heard.

I think we are married to the same woman.

[Huckleberry 33676]

8 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It was also the right thing to do.  The responsibility is supposed to belong to congress.

 

4 minutes ago, Viper said:

but, isn't that one of the reasons for having to ask congress to begin with?

I was referring to the "I don't have to but I'm going to anyway" aspect of it. If he had just said that it was Constitutionally required then I'd be all in favor of the move. But the way he explained it made it perfectly clear he was only doing it for cover.

[Viper 12160]

gotcha, yeah I thought that was wrong to do as well, though I understand it as part of the never-ending power grab of the office.

[F250 28991]

5 hours ago, Viper said:

it should matter but it probably won't. The Dems taking over in 2008 pretty much killed the anti-war movement.

I am pretty sure the Democrats were driving the anti-war movement throughout the Bush administration and then pulled the plug on it once Obama was elected. The funding and organization disappeared immediately after the election. I remember the only people opposed to the war in 2008 were libertarians and far leftists, which also seems to be the case when it comes to civil liberties.

 

[TwiceHorn 31705]

4 hours ago, Viper said:

I thought I remembered him saying he didn't need to legally, but other than that, nothing was wrong with following the constitution and asking congress for approval.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't contemplate congressional approval of military action; it contemplates congressional declaration of war.  It is a real gray area.  You may imply that congress should approve of all military action, but then the President is the CinC, so it is equally plausible that short of war, congress has nothing to say about it.

[wildcat09 29454]

22 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

I was referring to the "I don't have to but I'm going to anyway" aspect of it. If he had just said that it was Constitutionally required then I'd be all in favor of the move. But the way he explained it made it perfectly clear he was only doing it for cover.

I agree with this, but I'm angrier over Congress' abdication than the president attempting to take more power for itself. Hell, I'm more pissed about Congress' inaction than about Trump today. Testing the limits of their authority is what each branch does and has always done. When they go too far, they're supposed to get slapped down by the other branches. The complete rollover from Congress because asserting Congressional power is politically inconvenient for congressmen is a horrible problem, and I'm not sure how to solve it.

[bernorange 8377]

Paul held his hearing yesterday.  Not sure what good it will do, but at least someone in Congress cares about the issue.

Quote

This afternoon, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, chairman of the Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management (FSO) Subcommittee for the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC), held a hearing entitled, “War Powers and the Effects of Unauthorized Military Engagements on Federal Spending.”
 
Today’s hearing focused on the constitutional implications of open-ended war under both the existing Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the revised AUMF proposed by Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA).
 
The FSO subcommittee heard testimony from Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senior Judicial Analyst at the Fox News Channel; Professor Jonathan Turley from The George Washington University School of Law; and Christopher Anders, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office.
 
In addition to FSO subcommittee members, Dr. Paul opened the hearing to other senators, with Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) asking questions of the witnesses.  
 
“t is the job of Congress to declare or initiate war, and Congress has been negligent for over a decade now. Congress has not done its job. Congress has let president after president strip the war power from Congress and concentrate that power in the Executive,” Dr. Paul said in his opening statement.
 
Regarding what the situation would look like under the Corker-Kaine AUMF, Judge Andrew Napolitano testified, “So a president with one-third plus one in either house can wage war on any target at any time the president chooses to do so. That is so contrary to what Madison intended, so contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution, so violative of the separation of powers as to be a rejection of the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and none of you wants to reject that oath.”
 
You can watch Dr. Paul’s opening statement HERE and the full hearing HERE.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-holds-hearing-effects-unauthorized-war