"So farcical have the linguistic games become that we have reached a point at which Congress is being instructed that, Assad having crossed a red line that the executive branch didn’t set, it must accord the executive branch the permission that it doesn’t need to start a war that isn’t a war."
Friday, September 06, 2013
Quote of the Day: Linguistic Lunacy
Indeed:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I realize that the article you quoted doesn't contend one way or the other that Obama's proposed action is Constitutional, but it's actually a less settled question than commonly believed if this analysis is correct:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-magical-mysterious-disappearing-obama-red-line/?singlepage=trueOb
The Congressional 'declaration of war' requirement has become a lot more flexible since the US became a permanent global presence, but there still needs to be at least some link to US sovereign authority, such as a prior Congressional approval of a mutual defense pact, like the NATO treaty, or the UN covenant.
According to Kaufman's analysis, as it stands, the minimum threshold for US sovereign authority has not been met for a military action against Syria. In other words, if Obama had ordered or does order a military action against Syria without a Congressional certification, a case could be made that it's unConstitutional.
Post a Comment