[Peace] War Powers Enforcement Should Take Precedence Over Sponsorship Protocol

[Robert Naiman]

https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10159042980567656


War Powers Enforcement Should Take Precedence Over Bill Sponsorship Protocol


There’s a customary protocol norm about bill sponsorship sometimes observed
by House Democrats whose observance can make it much harder to end
unconstitutional wars, because it fundamentally conflicts with the
enforcement mechanism of the War Powers Resolution. If we could establish a
new norm, that enforcing the War Powers Resolution takes precedence over
this customary protocol norm about bill sponsorship, it would be easier to
end unconstitutional wars. The customary protocol norm is that once a
particular Member is perceived by other Members to be a leader on a
particular issue, other Members will defer to that Member to continue to
lead.


This customary protocol norm contradicts a key feature of the War Powers
Resolution enforcement mechanism, which is that in a War Powers Emergency –
the President is conducting an unconstitutional war that Congress has never
authorized – any Member of Congress can pull the fire alarm, any Member of
Congress can call 911, regardless of who did what in the past. The
enforcement mechanism of the War Powers Resolution is the introduction of a
privileged resolution [which must go to the floor if the sponsor insists]
directing the President to remove U.S. forces from the unconstitutional
war. This is the fire alarm, the 911 of the War Powers Resolution. In order
for the War Powers Resolution to work to stop unconstitutional wars as
Congress intended in 1973, it must be the case that any Member can
introduce a privileged resolution to end an unconstitutional war,
regardless of who did what in the past.


For example: right now the Administration is unconstitutionally
participating in the Saudi war in Yemen. This assertion should not be
controversial among honest people; Congress voted to explicitly affirm this
assertion when it passed the Sanders-Lee-Murphy Yemen War Powers Resolution
last year. The fact that this situation has persisted since March 2015 does
not make it any less of a War Powers Emergency. The fact that this
situation has persisted even after Congress explicitly voted to affirm that
the war was unconstitutional last year certainly doesn’t make it any less
of a War Powers Emergency.


The passage by the House last Thursday of the concurrent [not subject to
presidential veto] Iran War Powers Resolution, with House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and House Foreign Affairs Chair Eliot Engel explicitly affirming
that under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 [which is law] a concurrent
War Powers Resolution is binding, should increase our sense of urgency for
using the same mechanism to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the
Saudi war in Yemen. As a matter of elementary logic, if a concurrent Iran
War Powers Resolution is binding, a concurrent Yemen War Powers Resolution
is binding. If any House Democrat claims the contrary, we can simply cite
Speaker Pelosi and HFAC Chair Engel as our validators, and that should end
the argument. Q.E.D.


Therefore, every single House Democrat who voted for the Sanders-Lee-Murphy
Yemen War Powers Resolution – which is every single House Democrat who was
in the House at the time – now has a “joint and several” responsibility to
introduce a concurrent binding Yemen War Powers Resolution to end
unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. If it was
unconstitutional when the House passed the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution,
it’s unconstitutional now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20200114/85f9d4b6/attachment.htm>