Thomas Massie Introduces Amendments To Stop Unauthorized Military Operations in Egypt and Syria


Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has introduced two amendments to the House Defense Appropriations Act that would require Congressional approval for taxpayers' money to be used for "military or paramilitary purposes in Syria and Egypt."
The first amendment, cosponsored by Reps. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Justin Amash (R-Mich.), and Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), would block unauthorized funds for military or paramilitary operations in Syria. The second amendment, cosponsored by Reps. Amash and Yoho, would block the same sort of funds being used for military or paramilitary operations in Egypt.
Press release from Massie's office in full below:
WASHINGTON – Representative Massie offered two amendments to the House Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397) requiring congressional authorization to use taxpayer funds for military or paramilitary purposes in Syria and Egypt.
"Since our national security interests in Syria and Egypt are unclear, we risk giving money and military assistance to our enemies," said Rep. Massie. "The Constitution prohibits the President from unilaterally spending American taxpayer dollars on military operations without congressional approval. The American people deserve an open debate and an up-or-down vote by their elected officials on these important issues."
The bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Reps Schrader (D-OR), Amash (R-MI), Yoho (R-FL), would block unauthorized funding of military or paramilitary operations in Syria. Massie's second amendment, cosponsored by Reps Amash and Yoho, would block unauthorized funding of military or paramilitary operations in Egypt.
Rep. Amash said, "Congress has not authorized force against Syria or Egypt, which the Constitution requires before military action. Once again, the administration is considering unilaterally intervening in foreign wars that the American people want nothing to do with."
Previously, Rep. Massie introduced the War Powers Protection Act of 2013 (H.R. 2507), a stand-alone bill to block U.S. military aid to Syria without congressional authorization. The bill currently has 13 co-sponsors. His recent bipartisan amendment is part of a legislative strategy to allow debate and a vote on restricting military aid to Syrian rebels in the context of the Defense Appropriations Act. The House is expected to vote on H.R. 2397 before the August recess, but the rules committee has yet to decide whether debate on either of the Massie amendments will be allowed.
Massie introduced a bill that would block military aid being sent to Egypt last month.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bill Gates and James Franco done had a baby!
They're declaring war on the president's ability to make war!
What if Congress actually took control of its own responsibilities? What if it held exclusive the ability to declare war? What if it stopped letting the courts and regulators make de facto laws? Can you imagine such a thing?
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
You forgot to specify which newsletter.
This is a libertarian website, after all.
Yeah, we ALL have newsletters.
I wonder if there is some sort of document that we could point to that outlined the responsibilities of each branch of government. Something that explained a "Separation of Powers" if you will...
What if Congress actually took control of its own responsibilities? What if it held exclusive the ability to declare war? What if it stopped letting the courts and regulators make de facto laws? Can you imagine such a thing?
Now that's just crazy talk.
We'd be a democratic republic?
Assuming it gets passed (dubious considering the bipartisan warboner in Congress), how would the Great Unicorn rider circumvent it?
1) Issue a signing statement?
2) Use the "30 day" rule?
3) Ignore it altogether?
4) Other?
Commerce Clause!
*sigh*
General Walfare! PWND!
"Walfare" FTW!
"More Perfect Union"
"Domestic Tranquility"
The progtards get agitated when they can't just do whatever they want w/o consequences.
Penaltax!
That guy looks oddly like the prosecutor in the trial I testified in the other day.
I was just about to note that, even though I agree with Massie on this issue, his face looks eminently punchable.
He looks more like Gates, but the Franco is unmistakable.
1) Detroit finally declares bankruptcy. "Down goes Frazier The D! Down goes Frazier The D!"
http://www.detroitnews.com/art.....dyssey=mod
2) Matt Yglesias TOTALLY understands Detroit, cause he was there once. Or something:
?@mattyglesias 19m I went to Detroit once, which gave me a perfect understanding of all the complicated factors that have contributed to its decline.
Ok, I have to admit, the man has some modicum of wit to him:
They'll probably just borrow the money.
This is why I love govt bankruptcies - the blood money lenders get screwwwwwwwed.
Hopefully.
This one's even better:
The unions, and particularly their pensions and benefits, are going to get monkeyfucked.
Tee hee.
Tee hee.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." HL Mencken
Isn't that idea embodied in the Constitution? You know, the "Good and Hard" clause?
It's more commonly known as the impairment of contracts clause, you know, "Congress shall make no law impairing the obligation of contracts."