In Saturday Surprise, President Obama Punts to the Congress
Updates:
Surprise, Surprise, President Obama announces that Congress will vote on strike authorization
Now the question is will the American people inform their representatives in Congress of their desire for no strikes?
President Obama's Proposed Resolution (Sent to Congress for Approval) for the Use of Force in Syria
UN Inspectors in Netherlands, Clearing the Way for Expected Attack
Diplomatic Sources in the Gulf State that Saturday or Sunday will mark the beginning of the Launching of Attacks from Bases in Turkey, Cyprus, etc.
G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Sept. 5-6
U.S. Strike May Kill "Traitors" and Prisoners FOR the Assad Regime
- in other words, U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles and other ordnance may execute prisoners and potential defectors from the Syrian army who have been and now to a greater degree are being housed at possible military targets of the U.S. while Syrian army troops move into neighborhoods, schools and hospitals
British Parliament Votes Against Possible Military Action in Syria
I'm hoping and praying that Prime Minister Cameron is seen as a leader who understands the democratic principles of such a republic and is honored and respected for his gracious bow to the will of the people and of the House of Commons which represents those people.
According to the article linked above, UK Prime Minister David Cameron indicated he won’t proceed without parliamentary approval, saying the government "will act accordingly."
"I strongly believe in the need for a tough response in the use of chemical weapons but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons," he said in the aftermath of his defeat.
May his tribe increase.
I would also like the weak and overused War Powers Act of 1973 to be revised to raise the threshold for such attacks. Since constitutionally, the Congress has the power to wage war, the U.S. must be in imminent danger that waiting for Congress to act would endanger the American republic's existence. Another component that would be helpful is if the revised act would reign in any president with the possibility that if the Congress feels such authority is abused, it has the authority to conduct investigations and begin impeachment proceedings against the president. With such a strongly worded act of Congress, a president would be putting his presidency on the line whenever he acted militarily without Congressional approval. This, I think, would lead to less interventions and a process more respecting of our balance of powers and founding principles than the current War Powers Act allows. For those who do not know, the last war that the United States followed the Constitution concerning was World War II, with a declaration of war being declared by the Congress.
AP photo from a story at:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obama-syria-aumf-resolution-96131.html
Surprise, Surprise, President Obama announces that Congress will vote on strike authorization
Now the question is will the American people inform their representatives in Congress of their desire for no strikes?
President Obama's Proposed Resolution (Sent to Congress for Approval) for the Use of Force in Syria
UN Inspectors in Netherlands, Clearing the Way for Expected Attack
Diplomatic Sources in the Gulf State that Saturday or Sunday will mark the beginning of the Launching of Attacks from Bases in Turkey, Cyprus, etc.
G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Sept. 5-6
U.S. Strike May Kill "Traitors" and Prisoners FOR the Assad Regime
- in other words, U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles and other ordnance may execute prisoners and potential defectors from the Syrian army who have been and now to a greater degree are being housed at possible military targets of the U.S. while Syrian army troops move into neighborhoods, schools and hospitals
British Parliament Votes Against Possible Military Action in Syria
I'm hoping and praying that Prime Minister Cameron is seen as a leader who understands the democratic principles of such a republic and is honored and respected for his gracious bow to the will of the people and of the House of Commons which represents those people.
According to the article linked above, UK Prime Minister David Cameron indicated he won’t proceed without parliamentary approval, saying the government "will act accordingly."
"I strongly believe in the need for a tough response in the use of chemical weapons but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons," he said in the aftermath of his defeat.
May his tribe increase.
I would also like the weak and overused War Powers Act of 1973 to be revised to raise the threshold for such attacks. Since constitutionally, the Congress has the power to wage war, the U.S. must be in imminent danger that waiting for Congress to act would endanger the American republic's existence. Another component that would be helpful is if the revised act would reign in any president with the possibility that if the Congress feels such authority is abused, it has the authority to conduct investigations and begin impeachment proceedings against the president. With such a strongly worded act of Congress, a president would be putting his presidency on the line whenever he acted militarily without Congressional approval. This, I think, would lead to less interventions and a process more respecting of our balance of powers and founding principles than the current War Powers Act allows. For those who do not know, the last war that the United States followed the Constitution concerning was World War II, with a declaration of war being declared by the Congress.
Comments
Post a Comment