Congress, Constitutional Law, International, Military, Politics

Obama: I Need No Congressional Approval To Go Back To War In Iraq

President_Barack_Obama220px-B-2_spirit_bombingWe have been discussing the growing concerns over President Barack Obama’s series of unilateral actions in ordering agencies not to enforce law, effectively rewriting laws, and moving hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to areas of his choosing. One of the greatest concerns has been his unchecked authority asserted in the national security area. I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing. As with his approach in Libya, Syria and other combat operations, President Obama declared this week that he does not need any approval or even consultation with Congress if he decides to commit us again to war again in Iraq.

As in the past, Democrats are not just silent but actually applauding the circumvention of Congress — a precedent that will likely come back to haunt them if the next president is a Republican. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that the President does not need congressional approval to do go back into combat and then matter-of-factly that in their brief conversation, the President “did not give us an array of actions he was planning to take.”

While we do not expect combat troops on the ground, the White House appears to be exploring an intervention with air power and possible special forces. The White House simply told Congress and the public to trust their uber president: “Any action that he might contemplate when it comes to … the use of military force will be to deal with the immediate and medium-term threat posed by ISIL.”

I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. Obama has repeatedly suspended provisions of the health care law and made unilateral changes that were previously rejected by Congress. He has also moved hundreds of millions from one part of the Act to other parts without congressional approval. Now, his administration is reportedly changing key provisions of the ACA to potentially make billions of dollars available to the insurance industry in a move that was never debated, let alone approved, by the legislative branch. I just ran another column this month listing such incidents of executive over-reach that ideally would have included this potentially huge commitment under Obama’s claimed discretionary authority.

This week I debated the head of the Brennan Center at New York University on Obama’s unilateral actions and the dangers that they pose on the PBS program Newshour. While my co-guest repeatedly insisted that he is “not troubled” by the concentration of authority in the presidency, I again believe that Democrats will long regret that they support the rise of this uber presidency:

357 thoughts on “Obama: I Need No Congressional Approval To Go Back To War In Iraq”

  2. Sullinsea, the Republicans and Tea Publicans (who most definitly do not support Obama) aren’t objecting to this latest circumvention of Congress, or are they, did I miss it? Paul here seems to think Obama can bypass Congresson this, Paul does NOT support Obama, or has Paul become an Obamaphile now? 😉

    1. Bob, Esq – check out Operation Viking Hammer. Then check out the makeup of ISIS or ISIL. Then decide if it really is a civil war.

    2. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives Obama the power to commit troops for 60 days, plus an additional 30 days to remove them, without the consent of Congress. Therefore, by notifying Congress within 48 hours he has complied with the letter of the law.

  3. Paul, the DoD has wasted millions upon millions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are leaving behind buildings and planes etc that they had no need for from the get go. Even when the pentagon has said we don’t need certain planes for instance the congress has given them a blank check. Want to find some extra money, go to DoD as just one place to start

  4. Ohhhh, so Paul, then Professor Turley is wrong on this? The Prez doesn’t NEED to get Congressional approval?

  5. Michael Waldman seemed to get a bit more time than Jonathan Turley; time wasted on alleging that a gridlocked congress is license to ignore the constitution.

  6. It is not just in the sphere of foreign military intervention that President Obama is usurping legislative authority and undermining the delicate architecture of the Constitution designed to protect our unalienable God-given rights. He is behaving this way on domestic issues like DOMA and immigration.

    One of the problems is that his supporters are wholeheartedly urging him to simply ignore the constitutional limitations imposed upon his exercise of executive power.

    http://zombietime.com/sf_protesters_to_obama_please_be_a_dictator/

    1. Annie – Petraeus makes a good point, but in Iraq you are going to be the Air Force for one side or the other.

  7. Annie – he has powers under the War Powers Act, even if you don’t consider the Iraq War over.

  8. And again the professor uses words that as a lawyer are not sufficient to prove bad behavior: “appears to be” “reportedly” “potentially”. Supposition and speculation is not action or even proof or actual knowledge someone is going to or has done something.
    And SWM is right. McConnell agrees too. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2014/06/obama_doesnt_need_congress_ok.html

    an authorization for the use of military force in Iraq, passed by Congress in 2002, is still on the books and could potentially be used as a rationale for the White House acting without additional approval. Before the outburst of violence in Iraq, Obama had called for that authorization to be repealed.

    H.R. 3852: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

    Introduced:Jan 10, 2014Status:Referred to Committee on Jan 10, 2014 Prognosis1% chance of being enacted

    Prognosis
    7% chance of getting past committee.
    1% chance of being enacted.

    Only 11% of bills made it past committee and only about 3% were enacted in 2011–2013. [show factors | methodology]

    Congress couldn’t be bothered to act. They gave the permission with only one dissenting vote Three days after the attacks of September 11th, Congress with only one dissenting vote approved a joint resolution entitled “Authorization for Use of Military Force.” In part, it says:
    That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

  9. So Warspite (your handle is apropos for this subject). Can you tell me why Republicans and Tea Party Republicans aren’t coming out in droves and objecting to this latest circumvention of Congress by Obama?

  10. “SWM – if he is going to back up the special ops group he is going to have to give them air support. That will include bombing and strafing.” Yes, He may very well, but has not thus far.

    1. SWM – the special ops guys have not hit the ground yet. It will take some time for them to ramp up.

  12. But he’s a, “professor of Constitutional Law”! Con Law, my butt. Is it the rubber hitting the road on Aff Action, or is he just another fascist wannabee?

    Why is it so hard for Democratic presidents to understand the Presidency is not a Kingship. From Clinton’s abuse of executive orders to Obama “writing out” Congress, they do all the nice liberal talk, but have no respect for anything having to do with a republic.

    1. Annie – do you really think Robert Reich is an impartial commentor on flat tax? When you are involved in income redistribution and using taxation as your methodology, then you cannot have a flat tax.

  13. We have been in illegal “War” so much since the end of WWII that I think we can no longer tell the difference. Dropping bombs in Libya was an act of War. Dropping bombs in Iraq is an act of War, dropping bombs on Vietnam was an act of War. Dropping bombs on Afghanistan is an act of war, shooting missiles in Pakistan is an act of war, sending soldiers with guns to fire in Granada was an act of War. If this is not an act of War, what is?

  14. Paul. I was speaking specifically about the current situation in Iraq. Has Obama bombed Iraq yesterday or today?

  15. Border Patrol agents are being turned into childcare workers and health care workers. They had to deliver a baby yesterday! Not a very compassionate Administration.

  16. That country was never going to be secure by our will. It just won’t happen. We have/had no business there, and this is just the proof. All we can do is let those people sort out there hate, and not become a vehicle for either side. No one likes to be told what to do, especially from a standing army in their country. Don’t think we liked it much here…

  17. swarthmoremom, “he has not listened to Dick Cheney and the republicans and gone back to war”

    In my mind, dropping bombs on a foreign country is an act of war. If Brazil flew an airplane over the United States and dropped bombs, would we not consider this an act of war?

    Please disabuse me of this false belief.

  18. Close some tax loopholes for the super rich and there will be more money for what is needed for the common American. It’s not a difficult concept. Elizabeth Warren spoke about it very strongly and clearly yesterday on a news show.

    1. SWM – if he is going to back up the special ops group he is going to have to give them air support. That will include bombing and strafing.

    2. Annie – flat tax for EVERYONE. Then everyone has skin in the game.

    1. Annie – those illegal aliens are over running the Southwest, especially since they think they can become citizens under the new Dream Act. We are getting thousands of teenagers crossing the border into Arizona. Since the temperatures have gotten into the 100s, we will start finding bodies.

  20. Annie – that massive student debt, is now going to be paid for by you. Since not enough money will be going back into the fund to replenish itself, more money will have to be allocated from the budget. More money from the budget comes either from cuts elsewhere (unlikely) or a larger budget (which we all pay for in one way or the other).

Comments are closed.