Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Misreading the War Powers Act

Obama Has No Authority to Attack Syria

by PAUL FINDLEY

Despite his own recent statements to the contrary, President Barack Obama has no legal authority to assault the government of Syria even as “a warning shot.” Neither the United States Constitution, nor the War Powers Act of 1973 gives him such authority in the absence of an emergency that allows Congress no time to react.

Obama cannot cite the present situation as such an emergency, given his public statement that members of Congress need not act until the completion of their scheduled vacation. He has said that his proposal is “not time sensitive.” If Congress fails to approve a resolution approving acts of war against Syria, he cannot order any military assault into Syria.

On several recent occasions the President and administration officials have mentioned a “sixty day” period during which he has authority to act without approval of Congress. Such authority does not exist. It is a misreading of a provision of the War Powers Act that provides only Congress with oversight constraints on executive actions.

Section 5(b) of the War Powers Act establishes limits of sixty or ninety days on acts of the President in such emergencies. Section 8(d) ordains, “Nothing in this Joint Resolution (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President or of the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United Stated Armed Forces into hostilities or situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, which authority he would not have had in the absence of this Joint Resolution.”

It is clear from the debates of the Philadelphia Convention, the first book of Blackstone, and the 69th Federalist, that the framers of the United States Constitution meant to prohibit the President from ordering acts of war without approval of Congress, except to repel sudden attacks or deal with imminent threats against American territory, armed forces, military installations, citizens, diplomats, embassies, or commerce. If the President could commence wars of choice on his own authority, the power of Congress to declare or authorize war would be idle words, and the framers did not intend idle words. The War Powers Act does not expand the options of the President. And if the President defies the prerogative of Congress, he can be impeached.

In 1848, Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a member of Congress from Illinois, upbraided President James K. Polk for initiating a war with Mexico. Believing Polk violated constitutional provisions against war making without authorization from Congress, Lincoln explained his opposition in a letter to his former law partner, Billy Herndon, in Springfield, Illinois: “Allow a President to invade a neighboring country anytime he deems it necessary . . . and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to this power in this respect . . . This [power] our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should have the power to bring that oppression on us.”

Timely words!

Paul Findley represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for 22 years. He is the author of They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israel Lobby.