Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And joining me -- judge and you know college town I'll probably the smartest legal constitutional guy Fox News and I wanted to ask you.
Were talking about this impending attack against Syria.
By the constitutional lawyer Barack Obama great -- by congress which is really just a room full -- lawyers according to our -- flying high.
So what is the -- Constitutional basis for -- President Obama to attack.
Well we have to we we have three issues here we have international law.
We have the United States constitution and we have domestic law federal law so we'll start with international law.
Before World War II international law was essentially theory.
After World War II countries got a little bit more sophisticated about this they realize that that terror and horror forward to in the entered into an ever treaties so.
Looking at the treaties we can distill some basic principles of one and attacking country may attack may use its military force.
So an attacking country can use military force against another country to repel an attack that has already started -- Order prevent an attack that is quote dangerously imminent quoted line which dangerously imminent.
It's from three treaties to which the United States that party neither of those situation it applies here and and attacking country can come to the -- of an ally with which it has a treaty one that ally has been attacked not the case here -- And attacking country can attack another country in order to enforce and international norm like a -- not use chemical weapons.
-- authorized to do so by the United Nations.
Which is not the case here are so under -- none of the four standard.
Generic ways to wage war.
Would this be -- this is potentially treacherous for Barack Obama.
Because if he bombs.
He could be considered a war criminal.
Perhaps not by you -- -- New -- right folks watching us now.
But by -- -- magistrate in the EU which will prevent him from ever going to -- EU for the rest of his life there's no statute of limitations.
On a charge of that committing a war crime so those -- the international.
Legal ramifications domestic ones are are are not much easier to sort out.
The presidency asking congress for permission and authorization.
To attack Syria.
Under the war powers act.
Enacted in 1973 when you were working in the White House over the -- veto President Nixon.
President Nixon vetoed it now because it liberated -- because it in his view it restrained absolutely.
The war powers act basically lets the president of the United States attack anybody he wants for ninety days.
So long as he can satisfy himself not congress himself.
That it's necessary for national security this is what -- Barack Obama used.
To bomb Libya this is what Ronald Reagan used to engaged in some sort of a limited and Grenada invasion of grenade at -- ostensibly -- rescue American students from a medical school.
But that statute I would argue is unconstitutional.
Supreme Court has not ruled that -- confrontational but the Supreme Court has said.
When the branches of the executive government.
Exchange powers among themselves.
They can't do so without amending the constitution so the president and the congress could no more say.
Okay the president can declare war.
Than the president and the congress could say OK but congress is going to appoint federal judges they could only do that by amending the constitution.
In similar circumstances not involving war the Supreme Court has ruled that way.
The war powers resolution is still good law in the United States.
And as much as it pains me to say this if President Obama bombed.
Claiming authority to do so under the war powers resolution it would be lawful for him to do so.
But lawful and OK but what happens if congress than does not go along with it does not given any permission and he goes and -- -- anyway.
Well many have a very serious political problem -- -- -- which might rise to the level of impeachment.
Because any be acting against the express will.
Congress look his his approval ratings are now very well they're probably the lowest they've been in his entire presidency.
They would sink even lower but I think he's in and a no win.
Situation -- taking.
Because I don't think he's going to get this resolution from both houses and he needs it from both houses.
And that will be the first time in American history.
That a president of the United States has sought war making power from the congressman congress is set no.
Why did he -- to congress senate one of our -- whenever people says and Clark -- says it's all about a pharmacy nothing to do chemical weapons.
It's about protecting the Red Line.
So why did Obama talks to congress knowing that he probably didn't have a -- I think.
Your your viewer may may have his or her finger on it here.
This was about his ego and it was about bravado it was about Barack Obama trying to sound like George W.
When it was running against Mitt Romney think just a year ago in August of of 2012.
When he said in the campaign this this red line statement.
-- what without sounding callous.
Off over -- 100000 people have died in this civil war.
We are going to get involved because of the manner.
In which 14100.
Of them died not the morality -- -- for wisdom of -- justice let them -- the manner.
In which they died.
It just doesn't make sense under law and has not recognized.
Our attitude let me take the next step we do something whatever it is -- -- -- the Syrians some way.
Syria retaliates are -- legally what are we in a different world back.
I hate to say this but if -- if Syria retaliated.
They would be engaged in a lawful act because international law permits.
Military force to retaliate when one has been attacked.
And we would not be.
In the -- situation we would be in the powerful situation but what -- we do with Syria.
Attacked us literally attacked our shores are killed innocent Americans.
Because of a -- -- Obama -- inability to have a coherent.
Foreign policy and and to follow the law.
We would accelerate.
Against Syria on notice again grossly out of Vienna than Russia would get involved now this could be -- important however -- -- this is your field -- more than mine.
If you don't mind question for me is this going to become a surrogate war gap between the United States and I -- -- And I learned yeah I'd say -- grandson and the senate okay I've got to tell you that lawyer fed has written probably the most Cogent response of anybody.
He says we can always depend on judge and for the best information he is about enough looks very nice to -- -- great -- -- so -- -- -- president.
In the past you really are.
Filter by section