SENATE BILL: Emergency Resolution to Authorize Force in Iraq (Withdrawn)

[Deus Naturae]

This is a Declaration of War, right?

[Deus Naturae]

Wait, so this isn't a Declaration of War? What constitutional authority does the Senate have to "authorize force" without declaring war?

[Deus Naturae]

Wait, so this isn't a Declaration of War? What constitutional authority does the Senate have to "authorize force" without declaring war?

The problem is this: our Constitution does not tell us how to deal with that specific situation. ISIS is not a nation, it is a terrorist organization. However, the Duke Administration and its allies on the Senate are concerned with folks like you that will try to sue any military action taken by the Atlasian Government over other countries. Hence, we decided to create this bill to provide us with the necessary legal approval to take our actions. I wouldn't mind calling this a Declaration of War but this is obviously not a traditional Declaration of War. An amendment is needed on that matter but this amendment is easily achievable. Moreover, I'm fine to setting up the objectives of that mission since Averroes Nix gave that idea. My personal objective is to destroy ISIS but we can discuss with our Senators...

So you admit that this "authorization of force" is unconstitutional and requires a constitutional amendment, yet you support it anyway?

[Deus Naturae]

What you recommend then, Tyrion?

Well, I feel encouraged at seeing Tyrion agreeing in some regards to this approach. I wonder if by setting more specific goals (I admit mine are vague in comparison to what we want to do) we could get the support we need from a majority of Senators.

Sorry, didn't see this until now.

If drone strikes are what's necessary (and I wouldn't be able to say for certain, but I'm not a huge fan of them in theory), then the President can do what he likes, anyway. He doesn't need our permission.

Yes, he does. Only the Senate may declare war.

[Deus Naturae]

What you recommend then, Tyrion?

Well, I feel encouraged at seeing Tyrion agreeing in some regards to this approach. I wonder if by setting more specific goals (I admit mine are vague in comparison to what we want to do) we could get the support we need from a majority of Senators.

Sorry, didn't see this until now.

If drone strikes are what's necessary (and I wouldn't be able to say for certain, but I'm not a huge fan of them in theory), then the President can do what he likes, anyway. He doesn't need our permission.

Yes, he does. Only the Senate may declare war.

It makes no sense that this is being cast as a declaration of war. I can only assume that there's been some kind of severe miscommunication.

Where has the idea that either this administration or the next are considering sending in ground troops (at least in numbers greater than necessary for the protection of diplomatic staff) come from?

If it isn't a declaration of war, what is it? What authority does the Senate have to "authorize force" without declaring war? What authority does the President have to launch drone attacks without Senatorial approval?

[Deus Naturae]

So, hypothetically, the President could launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq without Senatorial approval? Would that not also be justified under your interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 3?

[Deus Naturae]

So, hypothetically, the President could launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq without Senatorial approval? Would that not also be justified under your interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 3?

No,

The ability to command the Army by the President is unlimited save where otherwise stated by the Constitution. The biggest limit would be the power of the purse since only the Senate can raise and support those Armies.

Drone attacks would also have to be funded, no?

[Deus Naturae]

I don't recall saying they didn't. But of course any drones presently owned by the Army would already be funded.

What limitation on the Presidential power to command the Armed Forces were you referring to?

[Deus Naturae]

I don't recall saying they didn't. But of course any drones presently owned by the Army would already be funded.

What limitation on the Presidential power to command the Armed Forces were you referring to?

The SEnate has the power to withdraw such funding as a means to deny the PResident ability to engage in a conflict. An authorization works as a reverse of that I would think but acknowledges the Senate's authority to stop it as well if it wants to at a later date.

So, hypothetically, under your interpretation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3, the President could launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq without Senatorial approval provided that he only used existing military resources and the Senate did not revoke any current military funding?

[Deus Naturae]

I don't recall saying they didn't. But of course any drones presently owned by the Army would already be funded.

What limitation on the Presidential power to command the Armed Forces were you referring to?

The SEnate has the power to withdraw such funding as a means to deny the PResident ability to engage in a conflict. An authorization works as a reverse of that I would think but acknowledges the Senate's authority to stop it as well if it wants to at a later date.

So, hypothetically, under your interpretation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3, the President could launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq without Senatorial approval provided that he only used existing military resources and the Senate did not revoke any current military funding?

Define full scale invasion.
 
Speaking strictly of the Constitution, he could send in resources for some purpose that the Senate could later bar yes. A war with a sovereign nation would by definition require a declaration though, but we are not talking about war with a soveriegn nation but war in support of a sovereign nation, support that is requested by them.

Unless legislatively, the Senate has required pre-approval through some kind of War Powers Act that operates constitutionally by dening said funding ahead of time and requiring the President to get it before going in.

Alright, so you're saying that the President can take any military action whatsoever against an enemy that is not a sovereign nation, but the Senate can retroactively stop him by revoking military funding? If that's the case, why does the President even need Senatorial authorization to combat ISIS in any manner whatsoever? Is there any precedent for such a wide interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 3?

[Deus Naturae]

Looks like I really need to start working on a War Powers Act to prevent this mess. But so far it seems Deus may be right in the President having the constitutional right (or loophole, as your prefer), to deploy military assets and bomb places as long as he's not in war with a sovereign nation. While this may undercut the original argument of this resolution, I still find it important for the Senate to give authorization (even if the term has lost formality). I think I will consult with the Supreme Court today as well to see if I can get some opinions on the constitutional legality here.

FTR, I don't agree with that interpretation. I'm just trying to figure out what the legal argument for this thing is so I can argue against it.

[Deus Naturae]

Also, just based on the current text, this would seem to be a declaration of war, considering that it directly cites Article I, Section 5, Clause 18...

[Deus Naturae]

Wait...so if this is being/will be justified under one or more of the Senate's I.5 powers, why is the Senate authorizing the President to do anything? If this is just the Senate using its own powers, why doesn't the Senate just do it itself instead of authorizing the President to do it?

[Deus Naturae]

It should be noted that all laws not creating programs but not funding them (which would be "appropriations") are in real life called "authorizations" as well.

So, by your logic, under its I.5.3 power to "provide...a single market where competition is free and undistorted," the Senate could hypothetically authorize the President to unilaterally eliminate any Federal regulation he saw fit? Or, under its I.5.10 power to "build...the infrastructure necessary for communication and transportation," the Senate could hypothetically authorize the President to engage in any infrastructure project he wanted within a certain area of Atlasia? I don't think the Senate has the constitutional authority to delegate its enumerated powers to the President.

[Deus Naturae]

Except in this case, the Senate is not writing legislation, which the President then enforces. The Senate is attempting to delegate its power to legislate to the President. Unless you believe that the hypotheticals I brought up would be constitutional extensions of the Senate's legislative authority?

Also, just to clear up what's being argued once and for all: You're arguing that the Senate is exercising its power under I.5.20 to "promote Comity between Nations by engaging in such activities with other Nations as are of mutual benefit" by authorizing the President to take whatever military action necessary in Iraq to combat ISIS?

[Deus Naturae]

Alright, so this IS a declaration of war, and I.5.18 is from where the Senate is deriving the authority to do this? If that's the case, why call it something else?

[Deus Naturae]

Alright, so this IS a declaration of war, and I.5.18 is from where the Senate is deriving the authority to do this? If that's the case, why call it something else?

I am not aware of the full range of distinctions, but my assumption would be that a formal declaration of war implies a diplomatic recognition of the targeted entity as sovereign and by extension is a declaration of war on the people of said entity as well. Authorizing force without declaring war, is thus a way to avoid declaring war on a people as opposed to just combating the targeted entiry and not the people in the area it controls. North Korea could fit under the former of not wanting to recognize the gov't as legitimate, whilst Afghanistan and Iraq as wars of liberation would be the latter of liberating the people of said countries from their leaders, as opposed to waging war on both the gov't and its people.

Well, I guess this just brings us back to my initial question...what authority does the Senate have to functionally declare war while calling it something else?

[Deus Naturae]

I think the best way out of this is either an Amendment or court case.

What wording would you prefer in clause 18, Deus?

Eh...you're probably right that it doesn't matter what the bill is titled. What concerns me is that the title will result in people claiming that this isn't a declaration of war (as some have already done in this thread), even though that's explicitly what it is.

[Deus Naturae]

I am not a lawyer by trade or by hobby. I have some knowledge of history and politics and taken together the two experiences wtih both, I can offer my interpretations of what is presently the case with regards to what is legal with the present language. And since none of our more esteemed legal analysts stepped forward, I figured something was better than nothing in this regard.

Would you be willing to elaborate on precisely why people claiming it isn't a Declaration of War, is such a concern? Is it you fear they are deliberately trying to violate the Constitutional requirements, but if that is the case, how can such be if Senate passage is still present?

Hmm, something about this still bugs me and I'm not sure people realize the magnitude of what this is, but at this point I think you're probably right about the constitutionality under I.5.8.

Some more practical concerns: This thing sets out no concrete objectives. Who knows how long we could be in Iraq if this passes? In general I think this is way too vague. . If the Senate wants to do anything, it should be specific and well-defined, not just a nod to the President to do whatever he wants.