Why is Judge Napolitano spreading this BS?

[LibertyEagle]

"Judge Andrew Napolitano gave us the answers this morning on Fox and Friends as legal experts debate whether missile strikes on Syria would be legal without congressional approval.

The judge explained that it is legal under the War Powers Resolution for the president to authorize the strikes, but the campaign cannot go beyond 90 days.

He said President Obama does not need the approval of lawmakers because Congress has already given the president the necessary authority when it passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973."

Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/09/0...syria-without-congress-approval#ixzz2drDZC5cd

Rand certainly doesn't agree. Nor does the War Powers Act, in fact.

The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Absent these criteria, the president has no authority to declare war. -- Rand Paul

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303298/opposing-unconstitutional-wars-sen-rand-paul
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284330-War-Powers-Resolution

 

[cajuncocoa]

Because it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

 

[jllundqu]

This came up before Libya. It's not right, but the current understanding and legal precedence is that a president can initiate force, but must come back to congress for authorization to continue the force after 90 days. He did no do this with Libya.

With respect to the law, Judge is right, however, in principle, this is very very wrong and I agree that bombing anyone not in self defense is an act of war governed by the Congress, not the executive.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I questioned him on this on his FB under todays video that he posted. I'll get back on it if/when he answers.

 

[Warlord]

Amash disagree's with this and says the 90 day thing is only if there is a threat. Syria is not a threat or invading the US so this reasoning does not apply

 

[LibertyEagle]

Amash disagree's with this and says the 90 day thing is only if there is a threat. Syria is not a threat or invading the US so this reasoning does not apply

That is what Rand believes too.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Because it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

I think you need to read the resolution. Somehow you missed the criteria.

 

[Cabal]

The State is framing the situation as a 'direct threat' to US interests and allies in the region. From that argument, they can rationalize military action as legal with regard to the War Powers act. Not the the War Powers act means fuck-all--it's been violated several times without consequence.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The State is framing the situation as a 'direct threat' to US interests and allies in the region. From that argument, they can rationalize military action as legal with regard to the War Powers act. Not the the War Powers act means fuck-all--it's been violated several times without consequence.

How would that fulfill any of these criteria?

The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

 

[ClydeCoulter]

How would that fulfill any of these criteria?

That's how I read it. There is no national emergency in this case.

 

[thoughtomator]

Napolitano is following the logic of the Obama line on what his powers are and aren't, exposing that if Obama's war powers are as extensive as he claims they are, then going to Congress is unnecessary.

 

[Cabal]

How would that fulfill any of these criteria?

Probably #3, if I had to guess.

You seem surprised.

 

[paulbot24]

The State is framing the situation as a 'direct threat' to US interests and allies in the region. From that argument, they can rationalize military action as legal with regard to the War Powers act. Not the the War Powers act means fuck-all--it's been violated several times without consequence.

Well when we have bases and corporate interests with people we have to pay to like us allies all over every region on the globe then they can easily rationalize military action anywhere at any time. You're absolutely right, it means fuck all anyways.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I think you need to read the resolution. Somehow you missed the criteria.

No, I didn't miss the criteria. See Cabal's post #8.

 

[Cabal]

Well when we have bases and corporate interests with people we have to pay to like us allies all over every region on the globe then they can easily rationalize military action anywhere at any time.

Now you're beginning to understand.

 

[erowe1]

I notice that most of what the article in the OP says does not quote Napolitano in his own words.

 

[dillo]

It is legal until a court says its not, and the court has basically pussied out

 

[ZENemy]

Its literally all legal FICTION, No piece of paper or "act" lawfully allows us to murder or rape any country or its inhabitants.

War, in all ways other than direct defense is unLAWFUL

 

[Cabal]

Its literally all legal FICTION, No piece of paper or "act" lawfully allows us to murder or rape any country or its inhabitants.

War, in all ways other than direct defense is unLAWFUL

I think you're confusing morality with legality. The law is whatever the State says is law.

 

[erowe1]

I think you're confusing morality with legality. The law is whatever the State says is law.

No. An unjust law is no law at all.