Fear of the political fallout of a vote on the ISIS war kept any consideration of an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) before the mid-term election. With that over, the vote doesn’t seem much more likely now.
President Obama has given some lip-service to the idea of such a AUMF now, despite insisting for months he didn’t need or want one. Neither the lame duck Congress nor the incoming one seem interested now.
There’s plenty of appetite for the war, mind you, particularly within the hawkish incoming Senate. There’s also so much eagerness in expanding the scope of the war that no one wants to put down on paper exactly what the defined limits of the current war will be.
House Armed Services Chief Rep. Buck McKeon (R – CA) has vowed to block any AUMF that includes any limits on the use of ground troops for combat in Iraq or Syria, and many in the Senate are talking up expanding the war in any and every way possible.
With only a few in Congress pushing to insinuate themselves in the question of the war at all, it seems likely then that a bit more public debate will come, but without an actual vote.
In the interim, escalation and pushes for more escalation beyond that are to be expected, and by the time the war is big enough to placate the hawks that it is defined sufficiently, it will also be long beyond the issue of a vote.
Of course congress doesn't want to vote on it. The hawks want a president that can wage war unilaterally, and they know that all they have to do is sit back and watch, and Obama will continue to expand that precedent for them.
It is a delicate balance – support the war enough to get checks from Lockheed and AIPAC, but be subdued enough so that you don't have to hear about it next election.
Just ask the Laboring-class
In 1776 the rich nobility created our Empire to be a rich man’s paradise, for no one but High Society had anything to do with it’s creation and to this day if you can’t afford to hire a lawyer you get no justice — if your group cannot afford to hire a politian you get no liberty.
I believe ALEC has a boiler-plate for that.
Congress has no interest in [ fill in name of issue ].
(Sign and return to your House/Senate leader.)
Thank you for acting dumb.
The 2001 AUMF is unconstitutional. This new AUMF will be unconstitutional. Congress cannot and should never relinquish its Art.1 Section 8 war powers to the President. The same goes for the War Powers Resolution of 1973. One man cannot and should not have the power to initiate warfare or military operations on behalf of an entire nation. The ability for one man to initiate warfare or military operations is characteristic of autocrats. History tends to repeat itself, and we are at the centennial of the First World War, in which autocrats had the sole power of entering an entire nation into war and conflict. Of course, it is Congress that has relinquished and transferred its own power to the President. It began with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, an unconstitutional act of the same likeness as these "AUMFs". What we are seeing here are members of Congress both lazy and completely ignorant of democratic ideals, separation of powers, and checks/balances.
To — Morgan
“One man cannot and should not have the power to initiate warfare”
But surely, that is the way that the voting majority want it to be, for the laboring-class lower half of society are so apathedic that they never go to the polls, which gives the war-hawk upper half of society an unlimited ability to go for wars of aggression and plunder
Congress is happy the way it is, mire Arab national killing each other, more if nations in middle east are divided, more of USG trained and supported "moderates " Rebels are joining Isis whom are the best friends of John McCain whom is the sworn enemy of the Syrian, Iranian and Lebanese people, so, what else would they won't, perhaps a kiss as Christmas present from Saudis and uae barbarians who are supporting John McCain friends won't be bad at all.
Voting is for democracies, not for plutocracies. The EU doesn´t vote on things either..