Congress, Constitutional Law, International, Military, Politics, Society

Obama: I Do Not Need Congressional Approval To Go To War With ISIS

President_Barack_Obama220px-B-2_spirit_bombingPresident Obama is again asserting his right to act unilaterally and without congressional approval in going to war. In what has become a mantra for this Administration, Obama reportedly told members of Congress that he does not need congressional approval to unleash a comprehensive military campaign against the Islamic State. The President informed a few members at a dinner — a striking image of how low congressional authority has become in our tripartite system of government.


We 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 (and most recently on whether he will resume the war in Iraq), Obama is again asserting his extreme view of executive power.

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.

I have repeatedly testified (here and here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. However, war is a particularly egregious form of this unilateralism since the Framers worked hard to limit such powers under Article I and Article II.

Not only is the United States about to enter a new military campaign based solely on the President’s authority but he is promising to fight to the Islamic State “wherever their strategic targets are.” That may suggest additional violation of international law if the United States acts unilaterally with regard to the borders of foreign nations. Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, seems to anticipate and support such actions. She is quoted as saying “This is not an organization that respects international boundaries. You cannot leave them with a safe haven.” For some countries, that view may seem quite threatening since the United States has been repeatedly accused of bombing and conducting operations in other countries without approval.

Once again, we are left with the questions of any limiting principle to this new uber-presidency. A president can now unleash a military campaign without congressional approval that could involve multiple nations. Yet, Congress seems content, again, to watch in a purely pedestrian role as if this invitation to a “dinner” is a sufficient substitute for congressional authorization. While it is not a check or balance, the president did pick up the check.

Source: Washington Post

417 thoughts on “Obama: I Do Not Need Congressional Approval To Go To War With ISIS”

  1. And the professor always seems to ignore congress wanting to escape responsibility (for anything)

    “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/as-obama-makes-case-congress-is-divided-on-campaign-against-militants.html?_r=3

  3. General Norman Schwarzkopf take on leadership….Competence and character. I’ll be watching tonight.

  5. Paul, Obama @ least had the sense to not try and compete w/ Thursday Night Football. Actually, he is a sports junkie. He golfs w/ the Pardon The Interruption guys, Kornheiser and Wilbon.

  6. https://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/09/congressional-leaders-hoping-to-avoid-vote-on-bill-authorizing-force-against-isis-of-course/

    “Democratic leaders in the Senate and Republican leaders in the House want to avoid a public vote to authorize force, fearing the unknown political consequences eight weeks before the midterm elections on Nov. 4.”

    “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

  7. All the yelling Republicans did about his “inaction” in Iraq, NOW that they have a chance to act, what do they do? They flop once again. Cowards. President Obama SHOULD go in front of Congress, seek approval to declar a war. No action by Congrss? STAY OUT of it, the repercussions then fall on the heads of the duplicitous cowards in Congress. So be it, let the ME implode and hope they don’t reach us here on our soil.

  8. Given the treasonous nature of the republican party, holding the best interests of the American people hostage to thwart any and everything the President tries to do, if Obama can legally take actions on his own, then so be it.

    This country is ruled by special interests and most recently in the interest of power mongering republicans and extreme right wing groups. Thank god we have a President strong enough to take action. The only criticism is that he has not done more and sooner.

  9. Is he actually going to take time off the golf course to set a policy and carry it out? I think not. He does not have the will power.

  10. Congress has the power of the purse and can cut the funding for the war. It would not be the first time it has been threatened. However, I read somewhere the Republicans were willing to give him a resolution for war against ISIS.
    Under the War Powers Act he has 90 days on his own then Congress has to act or not act.
    At this point Obama’s numbers are so low that the general public with jump with glee at his impeachment, until they realized who his replacement is. See if you can say “President Biden” three times fast without throwing up.

  12. … waiting for the “if Congress would do something and not just say “NO”, then Obama wouldn’t have to act alone” (aka the Congress-Made-Him-Do-It) crowd to weigh in.

  13. DavidM: Professor Turley has written dozens of articles on this topic, testified many times to Congress, and addressed the options several times in this blog. You might consider browsing the archives.

    1. I know, Steve, but he always avoids the impeachment option. I do not see any strong solutions coming from the professor and do not understand why impeachment is not a stick that Congress should use.

  14. I wonder if they served chipped beef on toast @ the dinner. Because the prez told them, and the country, to eat shit.

  15. For the first 90… Sure…. After that… How about congress…. Oh Obama is just successor to the imperial president bush…

  17. War powers are about one of the only areas that I agree with the new philosophy in Presidential powers. The War Powers Act is a good balance, or at least about the best you’re going to get in my opinion.

    If Congress really wanted to stop it, cut out any money for replacement missiles, bombs and bullets from the next budget.

Comments are closed.