SENATE BILL: Emergency Resolution to Authorize Force in Iraq (Withdrawn)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Lumine

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The more Georgia evolves, the more it stays the same.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dropping bombs on Sunni extremists in northern Iraq will not bring democracy to the Middle East. It would, in effect, support flawed yet relatively stable and rational actors in the region, including not only the incompetent, sectarian Maliki government (the idea that Iraq has been "holding together nicely" was laughable even before ISIS advanced into the country), but also Iran and Bashar al-Assad.

I recall that the Maliki gov't was ousted in our world. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a Sunni-Kurdish General named Zebari.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sponsor?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dropping bombs on Sunni extremists in northern Iraq will not bring democracy to the Middle East. It would, in effect, support flawed yet relatively stable and rational actors in the region, including not only the incompetent, sectarian Maliki government (the idea that Iraq has been "holding together nicely" was laughable even before ISIS advanced into the country), but also Iran and Bashar al-Assad.

I recall that the Maliki gov't was ousted in our world. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a Sunni-Kurdish General named Zebari.

Yes, Lumine pointed that out on the last page. As I said, it only reinforces my point about Iraq not qualifying as a democracy, although I had forgotten that he was a Kurd - which undermines a lot of what I've been saying about Iraq's government being a corrupt, sectarian mess. We need Simfan in here to discuss the situation on the ground, because it must be significantly different from RL.

In fact, I doubt that ISIS would have made it as far as they have given the circumstances (i.e. Sunnis must not resent the government to the extent that they do IRL, the Kurds are probably more willing to cooperate, and the military's officer corps hasn't been hollowed out to be filled with Maliki's cronies).

From my understanding the selection was in response to the gains that ISIS had made (about two weeks ago I think) so it is not like this appened a year ago or something.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To me, the fact that we have a Sunni-Kurd in charge gives us a small opportunity to preserve a gov't dedicated to a nified Iraq as opposed to the Sectarian gov't that we expended so much to support. Were it not for this opportunity, which in my opinion at least to me would make the situation seem somewhat better than real life in that there is a political path being pursued alongside unlike in real life, were it not for this window I would be against interveening at all. I said in my campaign that this situation combined with the time span of a potential Iran intervention on behalf of the shiites produces a situaiton where a limited interventjon now could avoid a bigger one later on

Trying to "destroy" ISIS is making the mistake, IMO, that has been made many times before. How do you even do that? What's the plan? We haven't destroyed al-Qaeda - and now we want to try to destroy ISIS? I don't think so. Also, when we attack one, they splinter and morph into another one, often more extreme than the one before. It's a mess!

Now. I can understand joining a coalition that seeks to prevent ISIS from taking over a government, but unilaterally sending drones and bombs and tanks out to the back country will not destroy ISIS. It will create a catastrophic mess on top of another catastrophic mess. You have to understand that these people are semi-barbaric. What can we really do outside cooperating with others to achieve very basic objectives?

I'm also not warm to what I'm reading that the in-game situation is possibly worse than the RL one.

The goal isn't to destroy ISIS but to hamper and hinder them to a degree that the Iraqi military can regain its footing and begin to push them back out of the country.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What you recommend then, Tyrion?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I recommend reading the recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding healthcare regarding the interaction of these clauses. Nothing in the Constitution says a Declaration of War has to be given before action can be taken, just that any declaration of war must be approved by the Senate. The Senate has an enumerated power to raise and support armed forces, provide for the common defense, to engage with other nations in operations of "mutual benefit", to provide relief from disasters both natural and man made, and finally the ability to pass all necessary and proper laws to carry out the aforementioned enumerated powers. Even if we are operating under the auspices of the authortization to declare war, nothing in the Constitution requires us to title it that or to use that format just that the power is tied to SEnate approval and thus it doesn't have to be in X form, all that matters is that the threshold is met (Senate Approval). I would arge tht 20, 22 and 32 allow us to do this even with touching the clause on declarations of War.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. The "Authorization to use Force" is I believe an entirely legislative construct utilizing the Legislative branch'es power of the purse to limit further the President's ability as Commander and Chief of the Armed forces and provide a method of Senate approval for actions in support of another c**ntry without declaring war on them. I am not 100% sure on this though, but I am pretty sure this was how it was concieved initially.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Under Article 1, Section 5, Clause 20, I think the Senate can lend assistance to a country in the form of military support without declaring war on them.

Clause 22 gives us the power to raise the support in question and

Clause 32, the ability to pass the laws necessary to raise and send such support.

And to answer the question you asked of the Irish gentleman, who probably will decline on the grounds of the fact that he might have to rule on this matter, you need look no further than the denial of cert to the healthcare case regarding the overlap of these clauses and how they interact.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oakvale without his strongly expressed personal opinions that would be, that would be, what would that be like Geoff?

Geoff: That would be like LA without their plastic surgery.

GEOFF! How dare you insult this great city?!!!!

Geoff: Ewwwww I am so terrible ewww ewwww

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

I am barely any less confused about all this then anyone else. I am merely stating what I presume to be the convoluted legality, but legality nonetheless, of the various similar stuff in the RL, which only adds to the complexity of the situation since I don't know what all statute Atlasia has passed and what impact any differences in wording between the US and Atlasia would have if any or even what those differences are.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

ITTIL: Apparently it's not war if we've already paid for it, if it's against an entity without sovereignty, if an already de-legitimized government wants us to bomb their territory, if the Senate hasn't explicitly said no, if you call it something else or if we send in 50,000 drones instead of 50,000 soldiers.

I didn't write this Constitution, Griffin. On top of the applicable real life equivalents, I am also taking into consideration what Oakvale's ruling said on the nature of the various clauses in section 5, or atl east my best understanding of it at this point.

I have also at now point stated a preference for or against this being the case, merely an analysis of what I think presently is the case.

A lot just hinges on whether there is a War Powers Act type thing in force and whether or not the it requires pre-approval from the Senate. If so, then the requirements regarding the need for Senate approval for a "limited engagement" would be as such law requires. If the real life version is in force, then I would recommend revewing that for clarification.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I know for certain there have been instances where in RL, various military assets were sent in without an approval beforehand. I also don't think Clinton got approval first before bombing Iraq in the 1990's but I might be mistaken on that. Since 911, the US has hit targets without authorizations regarding any specific country that they were in, several times as well and certainly without a "formal declaration of war" as many are labeling as the only way you can engage in combat in this thread. The Bin Laden Raid was conducted without informing Pakistan and certainly without a Declaration of War on Pakistan or even of his terrorist network. A mere authorization for the use of force that was passed after 911 has been the legal basis for attacking numerous targets across the globe to attack Bin Laden and his allies, in spite of the fact that Bush used the term War on Terror, no formal declaration of war was passed that I recall.

Here is the key questions one should be asking in this debare from a purely legal perspective. What difference if any exists between the Constitution of Atlasia, versus the US constitution that render a) declarations of War as the only way to authorize the use of force and b) prevent any engagement in any military action in the absence of such. There you will find your answer as to what is legal and what is not regarding this matter. Also, as c) you should probably ask what is the legal distinction if any between a declaration of war and a authorization for the use of force, particularly if the threshold for such (Senate PAssage) is the same?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The relevent portion from the healthcare case:

The Court does not believe that the power to act in order to guarantee a single, undistorted market has any bearing on legitimate uses of the Senate's power under the other thirty-one clauses. To quote relevant precedent from perhaps one of our most distinguished predecessors, Chief Justice Sam Spade, (in what the Senior Associate Justice, on a point of personal privilege, considers one of the most finely crafted legal decisions issued by an Atlasian Court in its history) - the landmark Junkie v. Atlasia (2010);

However, as the Court shall stress today, these powers are “affirmative” grants of lawmaking ability.  Except where limited within the actual grant of power itself, each affirmative power given to the Senate does not limit the other affirmative powers of the Senate.  They exist separately, in and of themselves.  And even where separate powers duplicate each other, each affirmative grant of power to the Senate is not limited by this overlap.  Rather, each provision supplements the other respective power.
[...]

As for the impact of A1, S5, C4 upon our holding, the Court finds it irrelevant to our conclusion.  While we certainly acknowledge that a valid justification for the Senate’s passage of laws could be found by promotion of “a single market where competition is free and undistorted”, as noted above in Part I, there is no requirement that the Senate must promote “a single market where competition is free and undistorted” when it appropriately legislates under its other powers derived from the Constitution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maybe I should have bombed Iraq without any sort of legal backing and just become Atlasia's First War Criminal

DemPGH and Windjammer have yet to swear-in.

ANARCHY!!!!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The relevent portion from the healthcare case:

The Court does not believe that the power to act in order to guarantee a single, undistorted market has any bearing on legitimate uses of the Senate's power under the other thirty-one clauses. To quote relevant precedent from perhaps one of our most distinguished predecessors, Chief Justice Sam Spade, (in what the Senior Associate Justice, on a point of personal privilege, considers one of the most finely crafted legal decisions issued by an Atlasian Court in its history) - the landmark Junkie v. Atlasia (2010);

However, as the Court shall stress today, these powers are “affirmative” grants of lawmaking ability.  Except where limited within the actual grant of power itself, each affirmative power given to the Senate does not limit the other affirmative powers of the Senate.  They exist separately, in and of themselves.  And even where separate powers duplicate each other, each affirmative grant of power to the Senate is not limited by this overlap.  Rather, each provision supplements the other respective power.
[...]

As for the impact of A1, S5, C4 upon our holding, the Court finds it irrelevant to our conclusion.  While we certainly acknowledge that a valid justification for the Senate’s passage of laws could be found by promotion of “a single market where competition is free and undistorted”, as noted above in Part I, there is no requirement that the Senate must promote “a single market where competition is free and undistorted” when it appropriately legislates under its other powers derived from the Constitution.

How are you suggesting this is relevant to executive war power authority?

I wasn't

There seemed to be multiple lines of constitutional questioning regarding who can do what. There also seemed to be a presumption that this had to be structured as a formal declaration of war in order for the SEnate to do this. My point was that under other clauses of the same Article the Senate could give aid to Iraq and that ruling means that the requirement to declare war in one clause doesn't limit the ability to grant such aid under a different clause like the one on mutually beneficial interactions with other countries, which is rather vague obviously.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I understand II.1.3 as given the President the power to direct a war once Congress or the Senate has issued a declaration or has authorized an attack. Presidential powers are likely fairly limited and temporary - to respond to a crisis or to stave off an immediate threat, essentially. There is a degree of latitude there, and there has been in RL latitude given for operations that are limited in scale. That's at least my reading of it.

I'm of course not asking for a declaration of war - against whom, anyway? ISIS?

Also, absent a coalition I have no plans to sand the military to Iraq at all at this time for anything.

If you wanted to, the most appropriate course would be an authorization to support the Iraqi gov't against ISIS through limited and stated tools listed in the text as well as the objective of reducing their relative strengh to a point that the Berbari gov't in Iraq has time to stablize the situation and take the offensive on their own. That is what I would have pushed for if this text had gone anywhere that way mission creap would have been less likely.

I think it would be a mistake to miss this opportunity with a unity gov't forming under a Sunni Kurd. If the situation deteriorates, Iran could very well fill the void and almost assuredly the gov't of Iraq would return to that of a division and sectarian Shiite leadership as it is in real life.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Because exeuctive branch, ah, executes what we legislate no?

This is complicated enough lets not complicate the basics too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think you get the difference between executive and legislatively branches. THe Senate litteraly enforces nothing. The Executive is charged with enforcing the laws we pass and putting it all into effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military and the military is subordinated to the Deptartmnet of External Affairs in the executive branch.

The Senate is empowered to legislate what and how the executive enforces that what:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

What authority is being delegated? In both examples you cite, the key is "The Senate authorize" which as I side above is basically a catchall term for all legislation minus appropriations. So you are basically saying, "So you are saying the Senate can pass a law allowing the President to not enforce certain regulations?" and "So you are saying the Senate can pass a low allowing the President to build infrastructure in a a certain area of Atlasia?". The answer to both is ah yea, how else can you exercise legislative authority, other then "passing legislation"?