US Held Back From ISIS... by Congress???

[allenrexler]

Technically congress is supposed to declare war but that hasn't happened since World War II. The War Powers Act of 1973 changed things dramatically and muddied the water a lot regarding what was allowed. The constitution itself is quite straightforward in stating only congress can declare war. Subsequent legislation has made that statement irrelevant in a lot of ways. Also complicating things is the concept of terrorism and in general non-state actors being enemies in ill-defined "Wars." ISIL (as the White House calls it, strangely) is just the latest example.

 

[missbishi]

Now that I can agree with. A lot of people like to believe that it is all Obama's fault or this Presidents fault or that Presidents fault... nope, guys, give credit where credit is due. What is it they call a group of Baboons again???? Oh yeah, Congress.

In the UK, a group of cheetahs is called a coalition! Yes, we certainly have a coalition of cheaters in charge!

Back to the topic, if Obama doesn't actually need approval from Congress, what is holding him back? Is he really just leaving it for the next President to deal with or does the hesitation stem from the Iraq business? The prospect of retailiation must be particularly terrifying too and, like Coltodor says, it will probably take an attack on the US to get things moving.

 

[KimberlyD]

Technically congress is supposed to declare war but that hasn't happened since World War II. The War Powers Act of 1973 changed things dramatically and muddied the water a lot regarding what was allowed. The constitution itself is quite straightforward in stating only congress can declare war. Subsequent legislation has made that statement irrelevant in a lot of ways. Also complicating things is the concept of terrorism and in general non-state actors being enemies in ill-defined "Wars." ISIL (as the White House calls it, strangely) is just the latest example.

Your correct, it has been loosely followed for quite sometime (most of our Constitution has) AND we have not had any "declared" wars since WWII. However, the argument was whether or not the President had the power to send our troops over without Congress's consent. I was proving that based on the laws in the constitution... he does not. I am still trying to figure out the whole Marines thing because if they are not mentioned in the Constitution does that mean they are a state militia (which is against constitutional law) or are they outside of the governmental control or a unofficial military branch. Oh and the National Guard too.

In the UK, a group of cheetahs is called a coalition! Yes, we certainly have a coalition of cheaters in charge!

Good one! LOL I like it. We have a government of Baboons and you have a government of cheaters ... what a world!

 

[Rainshield7]

Your correct, it has been loosely followed for quite sometime (most of our Constitution has) AND we have not had any "declared" wars since WWII. However, the argument was whether or not the President had the power to send our troops over without Congress's consent. I was proving that based on the laws in the constitution... he does not. I am still trying to figure out the whole Marines thing because if they are not mentioned in the Constitution does that mean they are a state militia (which is against constitutional law) or are they outside of the governmental control or a unofficial military branch. Oh and the National Guard too.



Good one! LOL I like it. We have a government of Baboons and you have a government of cheaters ... what a world!

That is a good one about the cheetahs being a coalition. We have baboons that run our country LOL.

 

[xTinx]

If America doesn't intervene, do you think it still has the right to call itself a "superpower"? The moment they took on this position, they implicitly agreed to be the protector of aggrieved nations around the world, ensuring that weaker countries aren't bullied by other powerful countries or terrorized by stateless entities. Although congress can override the executive department's decision, if the executive department can establish that fighting ISIS is an issue of primordial interest, no amount of downvotes can overturn it. The US can act through NATO, anyhow. So the Congress is just wasting their breath.

 

[KimberlyD]

Well, they are involved now.

US Leading Strikes Against ISIS

 

[Rowe992]

Well whether or not they like to admit it but ISIS is as a result of US action in the past. The US has a track record of breeding new terrorist groups after arming them in conflicts with other forces. When they US stop intervening in the affairs of other nations and arming rebel groups who always seem to turn on them when the conflict ends.