Why is Congress afraid to vote on the ISIL war?
My sense is that in both houses of Congress, there is an overwhelming majority of members who believe strongly that the United States should be engaged in some sort of military action against ISIL. Yet, despite that overwhelming consensus - and despite the Constitutional demand that we should not be at war without a vote of Congress – there’s been a strange degree of silence on this issue for the last 16 months. If you look back a few years to the last war vote on Iraq, we saw the political consequences of that vote. I think that may have something to do with why Congress has been unwilling and remained mostly silent when it comes to holding a debate and vote on the war against ISIL. I believe strongly that the voice of Congress is needed. It’s needed to fulfill our Article I responsibility and to send a clear message to our troops, allies and our adversaries that we are committed to this mission. I think when it comes down to it, deciding whether to go to war and put our servicemembers at risk is one of, if not the, toughest votes any member will make during their time in Congress. But taking these votes shouldn’t be an option – it’s our constitutional responsibility and it’s what the American people and our servicemembers deserve.
Why doesn't Congress declare war on Isis?
ISIS isn't a state so I'm not sure anyone can technically declare war on them. I think you can only declare war on another country. POTUS may be able to wage military actions without declaring war on terrorist organizations. That said the POTUS should definitely get congress to go along with him rather than doing it unilaterally. Unless congress is unwilling to do what's necessary to protect the US and/or our interests abroad. Duke
What would be the distribution of votes be in Congress if there was a vote on authorizing President Obama's war against ISIS today?
It is quite telling that Obama did not seek Congressional authorization,and the Republicans neither opposed the new war,or insist on a vote.The Republicans - and neither party - wished to go on record regarding the new war so close the the Midterms elections.You can bet this will all come home to roost for Obama, for the Democrats, and for the Republicans.
Why does Obama want Congress to authorize ISIS war?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording: [The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;Because that is how it is suppose to work. It is disingenuous for the republican congress to not do its job then holler when the President has maneuver around their inaction!
The congress doesn't need the President's approval or input to vote on a declaration of war against ISIS so why hasn't the Republican?
Technically you might be right. But in our whole history I have never heard of Congress declaring war with the POTUS asking for it first. Even WWII started that way.
Would a rejection of the Iran nuclear deal by the US Congress be a vote for war?
Dear POTUS,I truly appreciate your effort and hard work to secure a diplomatic solution, however, I have a few points to make, in the hope that you actually read this:1- "A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten our friends in the Middle East"! How exactly would Iran threaten our friends? Iran was invaded by Iraq while we were supporting Saddam. When Saddam used chemical weapon on both Kurdish and Iranians, the world was silent! Iran has not invaded any country in centuries and they cried over and over again that they are not pursuing a nuclear bomb! (We don't have any evidence that proves otherwise, yet we sanctioned 80 million people!) Iran helped us fighting terorrists in Afghanistan and we called them Axis or Evil! Iranians are actually losing lives fighting ISIS at this very moment. Whereas, Pakistan is expanding its nuclear warheads and we just choose to ignore the threat or at least don't catastrophize it in the US media!2- "... and provide a nuclear shield to the Iranian regime's support for terrorism, human rights abuses, and other destabilizing activities in the region."Could you please give us an example of where and when an Iranian citizen was directly involved in killing of western civilians? 15 of 19 people who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudis! (none of them Iranians)Why are we ignoring the atrocities on human rights in other Middle Eastern countries such as UAE (slaves building cities), Saudi Arabia (beheading and stunning on a daily basis), to name a few or human abuses in China? Why don't we put sanctions on them?We need to STOP demonizing Iranians if we want to avoid a war with them! Deal or no deal.
Do you think that resident aliens those who have summer home in a town and other tax paying transients...?
There are some restricts where resident aliens can vote in communal elections. The only thing foreigners can't vote in is federal elections. Should resident aliens be able to vote in their communities? I think so, because, as you mentioned, they should have a say in matters that concern their own community, town, even state.
What should US President do when US Congress decided to go war with ISIS?
What should US President do when US Congress decided to go war with ISIS?The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has declared war on 11 occasions, including its first declaration of war with Great Britain in 1812. Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II. Since that time it has agreed to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations and oversight. However, Since IS or Daesh is not a Country, Calephate or Nation, but a loose group of Islamic extremists or revolutionaries who have no legal standing, land or recognized government, The Congress would have a tough time declaring "war" on this non-state actor. It would be as nebulous as the "war on drugs, poverty, terrorism etc". They would just "agree to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations and oversight".Anyway, constitutionally, Congress declares war, pays for it and the President's job is to win it.Ref: senate.gov
Why is Obama so passive against ISIS?
Most Americans don't want us to get involved.
Does President Obama have an authority to declare war against ISIS without congressional approval?
Sort of... it's a little complicated. Start with the wikipedia article on the War Powers Resolution.The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.An Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is not formally in place yet, but Congressional leadership from both parties have made public statements of support.Levin predicts vote to authorize ISIS fight in lame-duck sessionIn the lead-up to the November 2014 U.S. Midterm Elections, no sitting candidate wants to record a war authorization vote that might be used against them by challengers. Many Congresspeople talk tough, but are unwilling to vote tough.