President 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
I would LOVE to see President Obama say tonight that he will go in front of Congress for their approval and if they don’t give it he will NOT act unilaterally. Then let the ME do whatever the heck it’s going to do without our intervention. EVERYONE must take responsibility here, President AND Congress. The cowardice of Congress astounds and disgusts me. Any wars that are occurring unlawfully, we need to demand they stop immediately.
Eric,
I released your comment above from the spam filter.
Jill: “our war there was, in part, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis. (Obviously bs.)”
America’s liberal reform goal for Iraq was true when Iraqi compliance via regime change was set as law and policy under Clinton and carried forward under Bush. It was still true when Obama said this in May 2011:
Our liberal reform goal with post-Saddam Iraq only turned into “bs” when Obama removed the vital organic US military peace-building element too early from the nation-building formula for Iraq.
From US Army FM (field manual) 1:
In other words, as historian T.R. Fehrenbach observed in This Kind of War:
To understand the irresponsibility, even cruelty, of Obama’s error, imagine the consequences if Eisenhower had pulled out our military too early and abandoned Europe and/or Asia in the early 1950s.
Peace operations on the level needed for Iraq are not in the State Department’s skill set. The US Army has built the peace on that level and was building the peace with Iraq – until the new Commander in Chief opted to “end the war”, instead.
Jill: “ISIS is a creature of the US.”
Unfortunately, Obama’s feckless ‘lead from behind’, yes-to-regime-change-but-no-to-peace-operations approach to the Arab Spring meant Obama adopted a near-sighted strategy with Syria (and in part with Libya) akin to ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ with the anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen.
Watch Congress abdicate its constitutional responsibility and allow Obama to assume the power of a dictator. That the US may be bombing other countries in violation of international law will not even be a subject worthy of congressional discussion. Obama will appeal to the universal outrage Americans feel for the ISIS executions. Congress will give him a standing ovation as he shreds the constitution in their face. This will mark a turning point in US history . Kiss democracy goodbye.
Did I miss the ending of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002? Did Congress repeal this?
Mr. Turley’s assertion that President Obama is intending to act without congressional approval seems misleading. The approval has already been granted.
For Paul Schulte …
“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.”
I’m sure that many Republicans hope and pray that they could impeach and convict both Obama AND Biden, thereby installing the Speaker of the House as President and nullifying the past two presidential elections. At the same time the Republicans would no doubt throw Boehner out and replace him as SOTH with a gen-yoo-ine, Bible-thumping 100% right-wing hack, the kind of man who should have been elected in 2008, in the first place….
And I have this comment for Professor Turley – if the House is basically on strike, and refuses to do much of anything in the national interest, what should the President do?
Jay S. – the House has passed a budget every year since Obama has been in office, can the Senate say the same?
Jill: “our war there was, in part, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis. (Obviously bs.)”
America’s liberal reform goal for Iraq was true when Iraqi compliance via regime change was set as law and policy under Clinton and carried forward under Bush. Building on the COIN “Surge” and Anbar Awakening, our peace-building with post-Saddam Iraq was on course when Bush handed off the US Presidency to Obama. However, our liberal reform goal with post-Saddam Iraq only turned into “bs” because the vital organic US military peace-building element was removed too early from the nation-building formula due to Obama’s course change.
To understand the irresponsibility, even cruelty, of Obama’s error, imagine the consequences if Eisenhower had followed Truman and FDR by pulling out our military too early and abandoning Europe and/or Asia in the early 1950s.
From US Army FM (field manual) 1:
In other words, as historian T.R. Fehrenbach observed in This Kind of War:
Peace operations on that level are not in the State Department’s skill set, even with Vatican-sized embassies and contractors. The US Army has built and does build the peace in theretofore non-permissive environments. Our soldiers were successfully building the peace in Iraq – until the new Commander in Chief opted to “end the war”.
Jill: “ISIS is a creature of the US.”
Unfortunately, Obama’s feckless ‘lead from behind’, yes-to-regime-change-but-no-to-peace-operations approach to the Arab Spring meant Obama adopted a near-sighted strategy with Syria (and in part with Libya) akin to ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ with the anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen.
“The Congress shall have power to … declare war …”
(Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11).
Yes, Paul. As intended.
Yeah, and look where it got us, Paul.
anon – that is a blanket statement without any facts or examples to respond to.
Correction for my comment at September 10, 2014 at 11:12 am:
* 1990-2011 covers the span of the Iraq intervention beginning with the initial response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The Gulf War ceasefire began, of course, in 1991.
Reblogged this on Arlin Report and commented:
The scary part is, no one, no one from Congress is disputing him.
Eric,
Obama has not ever taken our people out of Iraq. We have an embassy there in the Green Zone which is larger than Vatican City. The state dept. has hired mercenaries both before and after we officially “left” Iraq. They never left, we just don’t know about them. This in spite of the fact that the nation of Iraq wanted us gone and supposedly our war there was, in part, about bringing Democracy to the Iraqis. (Obviously bs.)
ISIS is a creature of the US. These excuses to make war are ways to make profits for a few already rich people. Wars are a way to clamp down on our own easily frightened and ignorant population. We are a people who will give away everyone’s freedom as a trade off for a false sense of security. We need to stop doing that, now.
Eric,
The American people polled wanted the military out if Iraq. See, if anyone had comments about Obama leaving troops there too long.
This controversy is one more compounding harm from Obama’s gross strategic blunder of leaving Iraq too early.
The 1990-2011 US-led Gulf War ceasefire enforcement and post-Saddam peace operations included an Executive-Legislative basis that was as solid as our long-term Europe and Asia deployments. Simply following our post-WW2 Europe and Asia precedents by staying in Iraq to continue building the peace that was begun in earnest with the COIN “Surge” and expanding Iraq’s constructive influence in the Middle East would have been uncontroversial – and solidly grounded in law and policy covering the span of, at that point, 4 US Presidents.
Rather than Obama’s current approach to Congress, Obama should work to restore Congress’s longstanding commitment to enforce peace in Iraq when America gave Saddam a “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) to comply with the UNSC resolutions ( http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html ) of the Gulf War ceasefire.
Public Law 102-1 (1991):
House Resolution 322 (1997):
Public Law 105-235 (1998):
Public Law 105-388 (1998):
Public Law 107-243 (2002):
Presidents HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush maintained a continuous course with Congress on Iraq. Obama’s change of course on Iraq has been a disaster. To fix his blunder, Obama needs to get back to his 3 predecessors’ course with Congress on Iraq.
“McCain, ISIS buddies.” WTF?
First of all, I do not want to go to war over ISIS. Secondly, if the War Powers Act allows any President 90 days, then he has the authority, at least for those 90 days. After that Congress has to grow a pair if they think they have the votes. Thirdly, I think it could be argued that since the courts refused to take the case that the actions in controversy were legal. Maybe McCain can call his ISIS buddies and ask them to stand down?
I agree. Obama is getting away w/murder because of several factors: 1. a spineless and completely complicit congress, 2. a Democratic party whose members by and large will support Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders no matter how evil, depraved, unjust and insane their actions are, 3. powerful Republicans who agree entirely with the administration because they will profit financially from warfare.
This is what a deep state looks like. There’s only one part of this that we the people control and that is us. Either we take a stand against wrongdoing, evil, cruelty and insanity, no matter who is doing it, or we are complicit in the destruction of our own society and the society of other people’s around the world.
If you want to leave a big shi% pile in your wake, continue excusing your party leaders and helping them out. If you are willing to try for something better, get on your integrity and speak out. Molly Ivins recommended pots and pans. There is something every person can try, even if it’s writing in this blog. Do it! Speak up, march if you can, donate to others to march. Take some kind of peaceful action of opposition. There isn’t a guarantee of success. If you will only do something because it will succeed I will say you are a coward.
You do something because it is the right thing to do.
Does Cheney scare you, Paul? Or are you a fan.
anon – Cheney came with experience.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/09/will-congress-vote-on-military-action-against-isis/
Here a partial listing of who is demanding a vote to authorize. Holding Congress blameless? Why?