Should congressional approval be required for all or most military actions?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Should congressional approval be required for all or most military actions?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, but it would require Congress not to be the utterly rotten and permanently deadlocked cluster[inks] it is.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, most.

If Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry are bombarding Detroit or Seattle, I won't blame Obama for taking executive actions, but otherwise Congress should approve before action is taken.

[Nhoj]

Congress isn't terribly sane either. But yes anyways.

[Sol]

Yes, but it would require Congress not to be the utterly rotten and permanently deadlocked cluster[inks] it is.

[Torie]

In addition to the emergency situation, sometimes a military action requires stealth. I think Congressional approval is required within 60 or 90 days thereafter for any such action to continue. Be that as it may, if an action is taken without approval, POTUS better have a darn good reason to present to the public square as to why he could not wait, to get advice and consent ex ante, rather than blast away and seek approval ex post. I am not sure the existing law needs to be changed however. These days a POTUS will just not do these kind of things, that he knows Congress would disapprove of.

[barfbag]

Kerry 2004- absolutely

Biden 2007- The president doesn't have constitutional authority to declare war on a nation with 70,000,000 people without the consent of congress.

Obama 2008- referred to Iraq as an illegal war

All 3 in 2013- flip flopped

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In addition to the emergency situation, sometimes a military action requires stealth. I think Congressional approval is required within 60 or 90 days thereafter for any such action to continue. Be that as it may, if an action is taken without approval, POTUS better have a darn good reason to present to the public square as to why he could not wait, to get advice and consent ex ante, rather than blast away and seek approval ex post. I am not sure the existing law needs to be changed however. These days a POTUS will just not do these kind of things, that he knows Congress would disapprove of.

When did Obama seek approval for the operation in Libya?

[bedstuy]

For anything but certain legally significant and impactful military actions, no.  I think this is an area where executive discretion works best.

[Hatman 🍁]

Isn't the President the "Commander in Chief".

Regardless, Congress should "OK" any non threatening military interventions, which describes nearly every war the US has been engaged in.

[barfbag]

In addition to the emergency situation, sometimes a military action requires stealth. I think Congressional approval is required within 60 or 90 days thereafter for any such action to continue. Be that as it may, if an action is taken without approval, POTUS better have a darn good reason to present to the public square as to why he could not wait, to get advice and consent ex ante, rather than blast away and seek approval ex post. I am not sure the existing law needs to be changed however. These days a POTUS will just not do these kind of things, that he knows Congress would disapprove of.

When did Obama seek approval for the operation in Libya?

He didn't at all, but at least Bush had the decency to ask for congressional approval.

[Lief 🗽]

The way the War Powers Resolution sets things up seems to be fine, even if the law itself is unconstitutional nonsense.

[barfbag]

The way the War Powers Resolution sets things up seems to be fine, even if the law itself is unconstitutional nonsense.

So should congress have to approve wars?

[Lief 🗽]

The way the War Powers Resolution sets things up seems to be fine, even if the law itself is unconstitutional nonsense.

So should congress have to approve wars?

Yes, Congress should have to approve wars. Not all military action though. What we're doing in Syria or Libya is/was not a war. What we did in Iraq was.

[barfbag]

The way the War Powers Resolution sets things up seems to be fine, even if the law itself is unconstitutional nonsense.

So should congress have to approve wars?

Yes, Congress should have to approve wars. Not all military action though. What we're doing in Syria or Libya is/was not a war. What we did in Iraq was.

Still though we don't know if there really are weapons of mass destruction. I won't believe they're in Syria until I can see them in person either. Also, the war might be about oil. We don't know that it's not.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The way the War Powers Resolution sets things up seems to be fine, even if the law itself is unconstitutional nonsense.

So should congress have to approve wars?

Yes, Congress should have to approve wars. Not all military action though. What we're doing in Syria or Libya is/was not a war. What we did in Iraq was.

Still though we don't know if there really are weapons of mass destruction. I won't believe they're in Syria until I can see them in person either. Also, the war might be about oil. We don't know that it's not.

I'm very cautious about pursuing any military action against Syria at this point, but... seriously?  How do you plan to do that?

[Frodo]

In theory, yes.  But seeing how dysfunctional this Congress has been in the past two years since the GOP captured the House, I would trust it less than I trust the President.   

[barfbag]

In theory, yes.  But seeing how dysfunctional this Congress has been in the past two years since the GOP captured the House, I would trust it less than I trust the President.   

Yep it's all the Republicans' fault. Look we can't be sure the war isn't about oil. I'm just being patriotic and asking questions.

[Frodo]

In theory, yes.  But seeing how dysfunctional this Congress has been in the past two years since the GOP captured the House, I would trust it less than I trust the President.   

Yep it's all the Republicans' fault.

It is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What the hell are you babbling about? 

[barfbag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What the hell are you babbling about? 
[/quote]

I'm just asking questions. I have the right to not agree.

[Lief 🗽]

Basically if Congress doesn't want the president using the military for something, they can defund it. Logistically the President can't decide to launch a full scale invasion of a country without congressional approval, so the only situations this is relevant in are limited airstrikes and things like that. But the executive branch, as an institution, is better able to handle these questions than Congress is.

[barfbag]

Basically if Congress doesn't want the president using the military for something, they can defund it. Logistically the President can't decide to launch a full scale invasion of a country without congressional approval, so the only situations this is relevant in are limited airstrikes and things like that. But the executive branch, as an institution, is better able to handle these questions than Congress is.

This is true. Let's hope it doesn't lead to war.

[Torie]

Libya was over before that "war's"  probation period was over, so there was nothing further to authorize, is my guess as to why no vote ever happened.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Libya was over before that "war's"  probation period was over, so there was nothing further to authorize, is my guess as to why no vote ever happened.

The Libyan intervention was 7 months long.

[TNF]

Absolutely. Why is this even a question? The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as it is and should be repealed. Congress should authorize any and all uses of military force by the United States government.