See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: Impeachment Should Be on the Table If Trump Bombs Iran
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.theamericanconservative ... the-table-if-trump-bombs-iran/
Published: May 22, 2019
Author: Gene Healy
Post Date: 2019-05-22 06:04:11 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1155
Comments: 19
Without Congress's approval, he has no legal authority to start a war, no matter what John Bolton seems to think. We’re told that the Trump administration’s brinksmanship on Iran stems from a power grab by President Donald Trump’s undeterrable national security advisor, John Bolton. And it’s true that Bolton has never met a “preventive” war he didn’t like and that there’s every reason to suspect him of scheming to create an excuse for one. But lately it’s getting hard to distinguish President Trump from “President Bolton.” “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran,” Trump rage-tweeted Sunday. “Never threaten the United States again!” If the administration can’t be convinced to stand down, the House of Representatives should launch a preemptive strike of its own. They should credibly threaten to impeach the president if he goes to war without congressional authorization. Waging war without legal authority is an impeachable offense, if anything is. Impeachment was designed to thwart attempts to subvert the Constitution; congressional control of the war power was one of that document’s core guarantees. “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,” James Madison affirmed, “than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.” The first federal impeachment case, brought less than a decade after the Constitution’s ratification, centered on charges of unauthorized warmaking. In 1797, the House impeached Tennessee Senator William Blount for conspiring to raise a private army for “a military hostile expedition” against Spanish-held Louisiana and Florida, “in violation of the obligations of neutrality, and against the laws of the United States.” In the Founding era, usurpation of the war power was considered serious enough to merit the ultimate constitutional remedy. No president has yet been impeached for illegal warmaking, but Richard Nixon came closest. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee debated impeaching Nixon for conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia “in derogation of the power of the Congress to declare war.” The article never made it into the final charges, possibly scuttled by Democratic leadership out of fear of revealing “that a few prominent members of their party had known about the secret bombing at the time.” As Congressman William Hungate put it afterwards: “It’s kind of hard to live with yourself when you impeach a guy for tapping telephones and not for making war without authorization.” Current members of Congress should find it hard to live with themselves if they don’t do something to prevent the Trump administration from dragging us into an illegal and unnecessary war. Yet so far the congressional response has been limited to ineffectual grousing and the introduction of a few bills that are wholly inadequate to the task at hand. Instead the House should consider passing a resolution “expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the use of offensive military force against Iran without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.” The late, great Congressman Walter Jones, long one of the most jealous guardians of Congress’s power “to declare War,” proposed a similar measure during President Obama’s second term, when the administration was publicly contemplating airstrikes on Syria. Jones introduced a concurrent resolution stating that “except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress” is an impeachable offense. Justin Amash is Wrong: Impeachment Would Damage Our Democracy After Mueller, Can Pelosi Hold the Line on Impeachment? The Jones resolution only secured a handful of cosponsors and proved unnecessary in any event, when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for airstrikes, then abandoned the effort entirely. The stakes are far higher now. The current House leadership is notably gun-shy about impeachment. But over the last two years, House Democrats have threatened to impeach Trump for much less. In the previous Congress, for example, Congressman Steve Cohen introduced articles charging Trump with, among other things, overspending on golf cart rentals at Mar-a-Lago. In January 2018, Congressman Al Green got 66 Democratic votes to move forward on a resolution to impeach Trump for “attempting to convert his bigoted statements into United States policy” in the form of the travel ban and the ban on transgender troops. Surely, more Democrats—and even a few Republicans, like Congressman Justin Amash—could rouse themselves to threaten impeachment to avoid a disastrous war in violation of a core constitutional guarantee. Other options on the table. H.R. 2354, barring funds for military action against Iran absent congressional authorization, can—and would—be vetoed by the president. A sense of the House resolution could not. It wouldn’t have the force of law, but it would be more than mere symbolism: a shot across the administration’s bow and fair warning to the president. Moreover, a resolution publicly declaring war with Iran an impeachable offense could serve as a precommitment device for the House, a public pledge to take action should he cross that line. Only two presidents have ever been impeached by the House, yet others still fear joining their ranks. Trump has claimed he’s “not even a little bit” worried about the prospect, but insider accounts and his public Twitter feed tell a different story. Earlier this week, he blew up at Representative Amash for opining that he’d engaged in impeachable conduct: “Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!” Impeachment’s purpose isn’t primarily to punish abuses after the fact—that would be cold comfort here—but to prevent damage from being done in the first place. “It will not be the only means of punishing misconduct, but it will prevent misconduct,” future Supreme Court justice James Iredell remarked during the ratification debates in 1788. “Although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.” But in law as in war, deterrence sometimes requires a credible threat. Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
If the title of the article is true then they should have impeached Bush1, Bush 2, Clinton, Obama
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡ "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Thomas Jefferson
Since there's been no congressional declaration of war since 12/08/1941, what's the problem?
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I wouldn't get my panties into a knot IIWY. Trump has both the neocons and Iran on a short string, and there ain't gonna be no war. The damned congressional dem's are angling for any excuse right now. They will institute impeachment investigations for the next 18 months without referring charges to the Senate or any type of reasonable examination.
Transcript @ Antiwar.com Blog, posted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on May 22, 2018 For Immediate Release Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) spoke on the floor today urging support for her amendment in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that upholds Congress’s constitutional power to declare war. The congresswoman’s amendment strikes the language of Section 1225 of the FY2019 NDAA that authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a strategy to counter the “destabilizing activities of Iran” and only afterwards inform Congress. The amendment will be on the House floor for a vote tomorrow, May 23. [Ref. YouTube video above] Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said: “Make no mistake – the authorization in Section 1225 of the underlying bill authorizes our U.S. military to go to war with Iran, which is one of the main reasons why I voted against this bill in committee. This provision authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to ‘develop and implement a strategy with foreign partners to counter the destabilizing activities of Iran.’ “The provision does not define what destabilizing activities they want our troops and taxpayer dollars to counter. It does not define a clear objective or end-state for our troops to achieve. In addition, this provision shuts the American people out from this decision entirely by circumventing Congress’s constitutional responsibility to declare war and giving unilateral power and unending authorization to ‘counter Iran’ to this and future Administrations – without defining in any way, shape, or form what the objective really is. “It sidelines Congress and the American people entirely, with the only requirement being that the Administration report to Congress after their plan is being implemented, and only for the next 4 years, while the authorization for war has no expiration date. “It gives after-the-fact license for what is already happening in the Middle East. Since 2015, without express Congressional authorization, US troops have been providing direct military support to Saudi Arabia in Yemen through information sharing, logistical support, and refueling Saudi warplanes which have dropped U.S.-made bombs on Yemeni civilians. The most recent attack was on a Yemeni wedding party, with two rounds of bombing killing more than 20 people and wounding dozens of others. This Saudi-led interventionist war has created one of the worst humanitarian disasters in history, worsening a situation that has led to mass starvation, cholera outbreaks, devastation, thousands of civilian deaths, and tens of thousands of injuries. “It gives total authority to the Administration to keep US troops in Syria, or any other country in the Middle East, as long as they deem it necessary – an intention clearly stated by members of this Administration. To name a few examples, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said last month that US troops would stay in Syria indefinitely until their goals are accomplished – namely to counter Iran. National Security Advisor John Bolton said in a 2015 op-ed entitled ‘To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran’ that ‘the United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.’ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently advocated that the US will ‘crush’ Iran with economic and military pressure unless it changes its behavior in the Middle East. “It’s clear that if left unchecked, war hawks in the Trump Administration will drag our country into more Middle East wars, leaving destruction in its wake around the world and here at home. Trillions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on these regime change wars in the Middle East since 9/11. Rather than dumping more taxpayer dollars in these wars as this provision authorizes, we should instead be investing in rebuilding our communities right here at home. “For too long, the US has engaged in military adventurism and interventionist wars, sending our troops overseas, with no clear objective or end state. ‘Countering Iran’ is not an end state that our military or diplomats can achieve. Without a clear objective, you end up in endless war. So what is the objective of this authorization for war? Is it regime change in Iran? Regime change in Syria? More war against Iran in Syria? Yemen? I strongly urge my colleagues to consider the serious consequences of Section 1225 being enacted because it would authorize any or all of these actions. It is Congress’s responsibility and constitutional role to declare war. The American people have a right to a real debate on such a declaration. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of my amendment.” House Vote #220 in 2018 (115th Congress) May 23, 2018 at 2:14 p.m. ET. On the Amendment in the House. This was a vote to approve or reject amendment H.Amdt. 636 (115th) (Tulsi Gabbard) to H.R. 5515 (115th). The title of the amendment is H.Amdt. 636 (Gabbard) to H.R. 5515: Amendment sought to strike section 1225 which authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy with foreign partners to counter the destabilizing activities of Iran.. [Note: Only 8 Republicans and 52 Democrats voted for her 2019 NDAA Amendment.] ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡ "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Thomas Jefferson
Starting wars without Congressional declaration started with Harry Truman
So far the Dems have no legitimate charge. Initiating a war would be legitimate grounds under the Constitution except for precedent.
That was the Korean War and had its start under U.N. auspices. As I am sure you will recall, the Soviet Ambassador missed the U.N. Security Council meeting and they declared a joint U.N. operation with the U.S. providing 90% of the manpower. www.factretriever.com/korean-war-facts Fifteen United Nations countries sent combat troops to Korea: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, Holland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Correct with one exception... In hopes of getting Hitler to declare war on the US, FDR had US navy vessels escorting British ships half way across the Atlantic. Hitler would not declare war so FDR went the Pearl Harbor route.
They have tried and are trying President Trump to do so. But I believe the man is just a bit too cagey to fall for that.
suck some more trumpchump stump
donnie likes it when arabs fondle them selves
Thank you for telling us about Congress already authorizing military force against Iran in the 2019 NDAA. Until then, I hadn't heard anything of it. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I have to remind myself daily that we were promised wars and rumors of wars until the end of time.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Now there's a prophesy. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Millenium after millenium.
We're certainly doing our part to help fulfill the scriptures.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Someone's got to do it, by gum.
#2. To: Ada (#0)
#3. To: ghostdogtxn, Ada, 4 (#2)
#4. To: Ada (#0)
#5. To: ghostdogtxn, 4 (#2)
My understanding from listening to Tulsi Gabbard on the Joe [Rogan] show is that in the latest iteration of the NDAA, congress already authorized military force against Iran, so long as it [is] "responsive". In fact, one of the things Tulsi was decrying was that it appeared to authorize the SecDef and SecState to launch military action against Iran without the President's approval.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Urges Congress to Oppose Authorization for War Against Iran - YouTube, less than 4.5 minutes | Published on May 22, 2018 by Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
May 22, 2018
This is from Google's cache of https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h220
#6. To: GreyLmist (#5)
(Edited)
#7. To: Darkwing (#1)
#8. To: randge (#4)
The damned congressional dem's are angling for any excuse right now.
#9. To: Ada (#7)
Starting wars without Congressional declaration started with Harry Truman
#10. To: Ada (#7)
Starting wars without Congressional declaration started with Harry Truman
#11. To: Ada (#8)
Initiating a war would be legitimate grounds
#12. To: randge (#11)
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
#13. To: BTP Holdings (#9)
I used to be in a hurry, then I figured out I was just getting nowhere fast.
#14. To: hondo68 (#12)
I used to be in a hurry, then I figured out I was just getting nowhere fast.
#15. To: ghostdogtxn (#6)
Thank you Lmist!
#16. To: GreyLmist, Christians, 4 (#15)
#17. To: Lod (#16)
#18. To: randge (#17)
#19. To: Lod (#18)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest