California congressman Ted Lieu tweeted the following:

“Below is the Constitution. It DOES NOT say @POTUS can:

-engage in acts of war without Congressional approval

-Use force for 60-90 days

-enforce the Chemical Weapons treaty by force

-attack a country that hasn’t attacked the US”

Ted is a lawyer, a reserve colonel and served in the JAG (Judge Advocate General) so he knows better, or should know better in any case. Welcome Ted to the Twilight zone: “Justice Robert H. Jackson once called the “zone of twilight in which the president and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain.” Without a clarification from SCOTUS, (Supreme Court of The United States) the question is one of interpretation not established law.

The President swore an oath, as you did Ted, to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution also says; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” and lastly, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”

So what does that do for my opposition? Fairly, well argued it says a lot.  The attack on Syria is not an act of war. The act of war was the use of chemical weapons upon civilians. The use of force in retaliation to that provocation is justified in enforcing the Chemical Weapons treaty. Just as police give out tickets to people speeding to enforce the law, so too is this attack justified. Remember that treaty is not a piece of paper that means nothing. The Chemical Weapons treaty is the “supreme law of the land.” Hence the term police action. This is not act of war but defending the USA from a foreign enemy. No approval is needed, just a notification within 48 hours. I think he still has a few hours to go on that notification part.

I am going to ignore the 60-90 days line, since it comes from the War Powers Resolution. Not in the Constitution but still having the force of congress, which your being a member would make you complicit. I would also point out the whole attack lasted more like 6-9 minutes to launch the missiles.

The last part, about not attacking the USA? True, they have not invaded but that was not your question, was it? The treaty signed by the USA is enforceable by all members who signed that treaty. The USA just happens to be the world’s only super power with the capability to do so.

So Ted, I think I can safely call this a draw. Even though, I think I have the better arguments. So why go for the low ball? Because without a ruling from the Supreme Court, we may never know who is right and who is wrong.

“Surprisingly, the courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. The first legal challenge to noncompliance with the resolution, Crockett v. Reagan (1982), was filed by eleven members of Congress who contended that President Ronald Reagan’s decision to send military advisers to El Salvador must be reported to Congress. A district court ruled that Congress, not the court, must resolve the question of whether U.S. forces in El Salvador were involved in a hostile or potentially hostile situation. The Supreme Court declined consideration of a later appeal. In Lowry v. Reagan (1987), the courts refused to decide whether President Reagan had failed to comply with the War Powers Resolution when he dispatched naval forces to the Persian Gulf. A suit was brought by 110 members of Congress, arguing that sending forces close to the Iran-Iraq war zone required congressional approval. The district court held that it was a political dispute to be dismissed “as a prudential matter under the political question doctrine.” (Source)