The U.S. and U.K. led a series of airstrikes in Yemen on Thursday evening, setting off alarms globally about how the attacks play into the smoldering regional risk of conflict — including a stream of questions from Congress about whether Biden was legally authorized to conduct the strikes at all.
Yeah, there’s absolutely a valid question of whether the AUMF is a good idea or not, but the fact of the matter is that it did pass, it is in force, and therefore essentially any military action - especially in response to direct attacks on American military ships - is unquestionably legal.
If Congress would like to complain about the President conducting war without its authority, they should perhaps revoke the essentially unlimited authority to conduct war that it gave him.
What’s the argument that it’s a good idea? That congress is dysfunctional and can’t respond to urgent threats in a timely manner?
Basically, and that in the modern era where attacks can happen very quickly and with zero warning from non-state actors (as opposed to having to march an army across fields for days), the President needs to be able to react very quickly.
Given the current state of Congress, with a shutdown looming, no real plan, and apparently now some rumblings of a plan to oust the Speaker yet again, I can kinda understand the logic.
More cynically, it isolates Congress members from any political accountability.
I understand the logic in this case but I still think congress should have more oversight of US military force. If the entire body is too cumbersome to react quickly, surely a delegated committee could be formed that can approve or deny actions quickly. The danger of having that power unilaterally available to the president is too great.
For what it’s worth, I don’t really disagree.
So they really said “Instead of making our congress functional again, we’ll drop some of the oversights on warfare”. Brilliant.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Rep Tlaib is welcome to file a lawsuit if she thinks the AUMF in unconstitutional. It would be a bit strange though if it survived 23 years of use, including actions in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and then a response to direct attacks on US Navy ships winds up being what sinks it.
But again, these representatives can sue if they’re so confident.
And would anyone expect this court to rule the AUMF unconstitutional?
As I said, it’s been in use for coming up on 23 years now. There have been plenty of Courts available during that time.
Saying that it’s not a good law - which I would actually agree with - is a very different thing from saying that it’s unconstitutional.
It’s ironic you bring up Marbury vs. Madison. The case where the Supreme Court gave itself the extra-constitutional authority to strike down laws.