Jan. 10, 2020
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Iranian terrorist general would still be dead under Senate resolution on use of force
Iranian general
Qasem Soleimani would still have been a legitimate military target in Iraq under
a resolution proposed by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), that on the surface promises
to limit the use of force but in reality simply accepts the status quo of U.S.
forces in Iraq and the Middle East. The resolution “directs the President to
remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic
of Iran or any part of its government or military… unless explicitly authorized
by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.” So,
except as otherwise authorized to use force by Congress, the President cannot
engage in hostilities with Iran. Which means, given standing authorizations use
force against Iraq and against terrorists, the drone strike in Iraq by U.S.
forces against Soleimani would have been authorized as a legitimate military
target, and he would still be dead even if this resolution had been in place.
Video: House gets cold feet on starting doomed to fail Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump
Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell declares he has the votes to begin the Senate impeachment
trial of President Donald Trump whether the House is ready or not.
Environmental approvals of infrastructure projects need to move at speed of 21st century
Americans for
Limited Government President Rick Manning: “The Trump administration’s proposed
rule to modernize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations is
timely and important. America cannot
compete in the 21st century digital age when common sense infrastructure needs
are effectively derailed by a regulatory regime which often takes the better
part of a decade to satisfy. The
streamlined system outlined by the proposed rule protects the environment while
taking away barriers which are more about stopping needed growth than
protecting the environment.”
Gregg Jarrett: Pelosi’s impeachment extortion is destined to fail
“Pelosi’s
refusal to convey the articles of impeachment to the Senate leaves the entire
matter at an impasse. By her venal tactics, she is effectively holding a
presidency and a nation hostage. The Senate has several options at its disposal
to remedy the dilemma. Since the Constitution is silent about transmitting
articles, the Senate could alter its current rules (via the “nuclear option”)
to allow for an impeachment trial without a perfunctory transmission. Or the
Senate could take up a proposal offered by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to dismiss
the articles for lack of prosecution if Pelosi continues to withhold them
beyond a specified date. In the alternative, the Senate could simply do nothing
if Pelosi decides to hold the articles in perpetuity. This, of course, will
deprive Trump of his right to a trial and be regarded as fundamentally unfair.
But it would also underscore that the speaker’s goal all along was to damage Trump
politically with specious impeachment offenses. It won’t work. The framers of
the Constitution never envisioned that a future House would vote to impeach a
president but then maneuver to halt an impeachment trial in the Senate. Who
could have foreseen a House speaker like Pelosi whose disdain for the
Constitution is exceeded only by her thirst for absolute, unfettered power? Pelosi
has made a mockery of impeachment and debased her high office. The Senate must
act to disabuse Pelosi of her pretensions and restore some semblance of
constitutional order.”
Iranian terrorist general would still be dead under Senate resolution on use of force
By Robert Romano
Iranian general Qasem Soleimani would still have been a legitimate military target in Iraq under a resolution proposed by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), that on the surface promises to limit the use of force but in reality simply accepts the status quo of U.S. forces in Iraq and the Middle East.
The resolution “directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military… unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.”
So, except as otherwise authorized to use force by Congress, the President cannot engage in hostilities with Iran.
Which means, given standing authorizations to use force against Iraq and against terrorists, the drone strike in Iraq by U.S. forces against Soleimani would have been authorized as a legitimate military target, and he would still be dead even if this resolution had been in place.
Specifically, under the broad 2002 authorization to use military force in Iraq, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to — (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
That authorized the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq in 2003, and the use of force after Hussein was removed from power.
It also authorized the use of force to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 1483 that authorized the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces, stating, “Calls upon the Authority, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and other relevant international law, to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people through the effective administration of the territory, including in particular working towards the restoration of conditions of security and stability and the creation of conditions in which the Iraqi people can freely determine their own political future…”
Therefore, in order to have targeted Soleimani in Iraq under the aforementioned provisions, all President Trump had to determine was that the use of force was necessary and appropriate to protect U.S. national security, to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people, to restore security and stability in Iraq or create conditions to help the people of Iraq to freely determine their own future.
Soleimani is said by the U.S. to be responsible for waging war in Iraq against the U.S. and Iraqi forces, including arming Shi’a militias in Iraq, the placement of roadside bombs that have killed, maimed and wounded thousands and the recent occupation of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad by those same Shi’a militias.
Soleimani’s actions would qualify him as a legitimate military target in Iraq, even though he was from Iran. The 2002 authorization covered targeting foreign fighters, including the Jordanian-born al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Musab al Zarqawi. If you’re running arms and fighters through Iraq, since 2002, the U.S. military has been watching.
As for how strong the evidence against Soleimani was, note this is not evidence for a trial, it is the intelligence the President was acting upon under his Article II constitutional responsibilities as the Commander-in-Chief, which in a war zone is often all you have to go on in determining targets.
To meet the legal standard, which is what the Senate is arguing over, the President has to have acted in his determination to protect U.S. national security and to secure Iraq. He makes the determination. That is all that is necessary once Congress has acted, which it has.
When Soleimani freely traveled to Iraq, having waged war there for years against the U.S., he was opening himself up to being targeted. And that would remain true, even under the Kaine resolution, which provides clear exception for prior Congressional authorizations, including those authorizing special forces to take out terrorists regardless of which country they are in.
Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning noted in a statement, “The President's decision to target the terrorist general Soleimani is authorized under current law, and would remain so authorized even under the resolution being proposed by Sen. Tim Kaine, which allows for force otherwise authorized by Congress.”
Now, if Congress wanted to address the fact that the authorizations to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan are nearly 20 years old without any end in sight in terms of stabilizing those countries, that’s a legitimate argument to be had. President Trump should invite that debate. Look at the authorizations and see if it is still in U.S. interests to remain in these countries militarily, engaging in operations against enemy combatants, or if it is finally time to leave the Iraqis and Afghans to their own devices.
But that is not what Congress via the Kaine resolution seeks to do. It is merely posturing so that members can pretend they are opposed to actions that they, through their own actions, have repeatedly authorized. This will be little more than a show vote.
So, keep on pretending. Either way, Soleimani would be dead and there’s not a word printed by Congress that will change that.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.
Video: House gets cold feet on starting doomed to fail Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4n5ZOaWvA
Environmental approvals of infrastructure projects need to move at speed of 21st century
Jan. 9, 2020, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in support of action by the White House Council of Environmental Quality to streamline environmental approvals for infrastructure and other projects:
“The Trump administration’s proposed rule to modernize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations is timely and important. America cannot compete in the 21st century digital age when common sense infrastructure needs are effectively derailed by a regulatory regime which often takes the better part of a decade to satisfy. The streamlined system outlined by the proposed rule protects the environment while taking away barriers which are more about stopping needed growth than protecting the environment.”
To view online: https://getliberty.org/2020/01/environmental-approvals-of-infrastructure-projects-need-to-move-at-speed-of-21st-century/
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column from Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) ploy to postpone the Senate trial of President Donald Trump is doomed to failure:
Gregg Jarrett: Pelosi’s impeachment extortion is destined to fail
By Gregg Jarrett
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s brazen attempt at extortion appears to have failed.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has announced he now has the necessary votes to begin the impeachment trial of President Trump in the Senate without capitulating to Pelosi’s shakedown that witnesses must be called in a trial of her choosing.
It is now up to Pelosi, D-Calif., to transmit the two articles of impeachment adopted by the House of Representatives. The longer she delays, the more her waning credibility devolves into utter irrelevancy.
It was Pelosi who insisted that President Trump was such a serious national security threat that “urgency” demanded the House rush through impeachment proceedings with tenuous hearsay and opinion evidence.
Once the Democratic-controlled House abided with its partisan vote, the speaker suddenly saw no urgency at all. For weeks she has refused to transmit the articles to the other side of the Capitol unless the Senate succumbed to her blackmail.
It was fatuous for Pelosi to think she could engineer rules in the Senate chamber on impeachment trial procedures. Blinded by her own arrogance, she thought she was somehow above the Constitution or could reinterpret its explicit meaning.
Article I, Section 3 states: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” It does not say that the House speaker can interfere with or countermand the “sole power” of the Senate by dictating trial procedures. Pelosi has no authority whatsoever. As McConnell bluntly put it: “Their turn is over.”
McConnell’s position is not unreasonable and has the benefit of historical precedence. His plan is to commence the impeachment trial with a presentment of the charges against Trump, followed by opening statements from House managers and Trump’s counsel.
Only thereafter would the Senate address the merits of calling any witnesses. This was the process adopted during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999.
I covered the Clinton trial from the nation’s capital and well remember the proceedings. There were no live witnesses called to testify. Instead, the Senate voted overwhelmingly (70 to 30) to depose three witnesses behind closed doors. Selected videotaped excerpts were then played in the Senate chamber as part of the evidentiary case.
The reasoning behind this process was deliberate and sound. Senators did not know what witnesses might be necessary until House managers had presented their case. Several other witnesses who had been proposed earlier were, in the end, deemed immaterial.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is wrong when he asserts that McConnell will banish all witnesses. That will likely be a decision made by a majority of the Senate once the first phase of the trial is concluded, as it was during Clinton’s trial. Schumer voted in favor of this very procedure in 1999. He also voted against calling any witnesses at all.
Unlike Pelosi, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., did not try to coerce the Senate into adopting his own desired set of rules at the outset of the Clinton trial. He well knew he had no right to do so. While Gingrich respected the duel but separate roles of the House and Senate meticulously defined in the Constitution, Pelosi seems to hold them in contempt.
Her extra-constitutional conduct is an audacious display of hubris. Pelosi is demanding that the Senate surrender to her “quid pro quo,” after accusing President Trump of an impeachable “quid pro quo.” The irony should be lost on no one. But double standards are endemic in a hypocritical Washington these days.
Pelosi’s refusal to convey the articles of impeachment to the Senate leaves the entire matter at an impasse. By her venal tactics, she is effectively holding a presidency and a nation hostage. The Senate has several options at its disposal to remedy the dilemma.
Since the Constitution is silent about transmitting articles, the Senate could alter its current rules (via the “nuclear option”) to allow for an impeachment trial without a perfunctory transmission. Or the Senate could take up a proposal offered by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to dismiss the articles for lack of prosecution if Pelosi continues to withhold them beyond a specified date.
In the alternative, the Senate could simply do nothing if Pelosi decides to hold the articles in perpetuity. This, of course, will deprive Trump of his right to a trial and be regarded as fundamentally unfair. But it would also underscore that the speaker’s goal all along was to damage Trump politically with specious impeachment offenses. It won’t work.
The framers of the Constitution never envisioned that a future House would vote to impeach a president but then maneuver to halt an impeachment trial in the Senate. Who could have foreseen a House speaker like Pelosi whose disdain for the Constitution is exceeded only by her thirst for absolute, unfettered power?
Pelosi has made a mockery of impeachment and debased her high office. The Senate must act to disabuse Pelosi of her pretensions and restore some semblance of constitutional order.
