War In Syria Impeachable, Unconstitutional?

Arguments used to attack Libya may have violated law

WND

NEW YORK – Would launching a military operation in Syria violate the U.S. Constitution?

A book released this week presenting a case for the impeachment of President Obama says arguments Obama used in the 2011 military operation in Libya may have violated U.S. law. The U.S.-NATO-led campaign in Libya was launched under similar circumstances using the same “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine that reportedly is being used to justify the pending operation in Syria.

As with Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi was accused of atrocities and human rights abuses in quelling a months-long rebel-led insurgency targeting his regime. Assad is accused of launching a chemical weapons attack against civilians last week.

In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott dedicate a chapter to the possible constitutional issues with the military campaign in Libya.

The authors open the chapter by citing Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who both previously interpreted the Constitution in a manner, the book shows, that would have made Obama’s use of hostilities in Libya illegal. Their interpretation would also make any U.S. strikes in Syria illegal.

Get “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” autographed, at WND’s Superstore

An immediate issue is Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “Congress shall have the power … to declare war.”

Legal scholars have long debated whether the stipulation means Congress must approve every use of military force abroad and whether the president maintains the flexibility to use force as long as hostilities do not become a “war,” a word that itself has many definitions.

Indeed, “Impeachable Offenses” notes that some previous declarations of war by Congress came after hostilities already had begun.

Constitutional framer James Madison wrote that at the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase “make war” was changed to “declare war” to leave to the president the decision to repel sudden attack but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.

John Samples, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Representative Government, noted how Obama and Biden both interpreted the Constitution in a way that would make their own war in Libya illegal.

Read More Here

Reposted with permission.