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
PCS, who approved the representatives? The voters in elections.
If I had a dollar for every time a politician acted on principle I would be……very poor. I’m really longing to find anyone in government willing to jeopardize reelection by standing for first principles. ANYONE!
PCS,
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
In 1789, the Founders established a restricted vote republic, provided freedom and imposed self-reliance. The meaningful, restricted vote has been diluted, weakened and replaced with the “one man, one vote” “democracy” (i.e. Marxism) in support of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” various collectivists, unconstitutional/illegal immigrants, minorities and lobbyists.
What a crowd. What is this crowd “progressing” to?
Evil are the capable, ambitious, dedicated, entrepreneurial and successful.
We sure like their money though, huh?
Didn’t the Founders tell us it would take strong, honorable, moral, ethical, disciplined men to “keep the republic?” Didn’t they express a fear of the “masses” meaning the “one man, one vote” chaos, anarchy, collectivist crowd.
*******************************************************************************************
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
John – I approved or at least voted for representatives. However, that does not mean who I approved got elected. God knows, Mickey Mouse is not President of the United States.
And the voting is by district. I only get to vote for Senators (statewide) and my representative. I have no vote for the representatives of other districts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/09/why-white-house-and-congress-dont-want-vote-on-military-action/ “So the path we’re on now is one that serves everyone’s interest. Without a resolution, President Obama doesn’t have to take the risk of a formal rebuke from Congress. But the White House is sending representatives to brief Congress about the situation, so members can feel (and say) they were consulted. By not casting an up-or-down vote, no member needs to take responsibility for what happens. If the military action is successful, they can say they were behind it all along. If it fails in any way, they can say everything would have been different if only Obama had heeded their counsel (and they can claim that they would have voted against a resolution, had there been one).” Congress does not want to vote on this pre-election.
Just pray the teleprompter doesn’t fail him tonight.
Annie: “what should he do NOW?”
President Obama must reintegrate President Bush’s sure-handed, paradigmatic liberal American leadership in order to at least try to fix Obama’s errors and reset the sustained, sufficient, effective leadership we need for the geopolitical contest.
Most importantly, Obama needs to find within himself Bush’s leadership mettle to “choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong” (USMA Cadet Prayer) when he decided on the COIN “Surge”.
To wit, from “Ryan Crocker’s Truth-Telling” by David Ignatius, January 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011603721.html
The one action that Obama should take that would re-align the American people and Congress for the fight ahead is to set the record straight on the Iraq mission – just as I’ve tried to do with you – and destroy the prevalent false narrative that OIF was “based on lies” and illegal/unConstitutional.
Past is prologue, right? The Russians promoted the same propaganda against Clinton’s Iraq enforcement. But the false narrative against the Iraq mission only became truly destructive when the Democrats cynically adopted it for partisan gain, despite knowing that Bush faithfully carried forward Clinton’s Iraq enforcement. The Democrats’ cynical strategy worked to win President Obama the White House. However, the false narrative against the Iraq mission has metastasized from a near-sighted partisan-propaganda device to manipulate voters in order to gain domestic political superiority into a fundamental guiding principle of American foreign policy under Obama that has caused real compounding harms in the world.
As such, Obama and other leading Democrats need first to take a step back to set the record straight on Iraq that they distorted, so that moving forward to current crises, America can compete effectively again as a leader. If Obama does that, Congress, the American People, and indeed the West, will follow.
How did America end up here?
The vote.
American voters voided the original restricted vote republic and approved “one man, one vote” democracy.
American voters approved of Lincoln’s war.
American voters approved the rapid, mass “immigration” of ex-slaves.
American voters approved women’s suffrage.
American voters approved the implementation of the Communist Manifesto.
American voters approved of WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars.
American voters approved the “rapid” “immigration” of the Mexican population.
American voters will approve Obama’s war.
Alternatively, there will be a sea change in November.
NOT.
John – I think a lot of what you say American voters approved was actually approved by our representatives. Sadly, we do not get a veto on the representatives of other states.
Re September 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Thanks, rafflaw.
Eric, what do YOU think the President should do about ISIS? And yes, yes, we know what you think about what he should’ve done in the past, but what should he do NOW? What do you expect Congress to do? Do you have expectations for Congress?
At least dubya went to Congress…
… Obama, not so much.
Eric
Peace… Is that even a word American Government knows?
Jim N: “It’s precisely the same deal Dubya made.”
Huh?
Your statement is directly contradicted by PL 107-40 (2001) and PL 107-243 (2002).
In fact, Bush went to Congress in 2002 for PL 107-243 despite that law and policy made under HW Bush and Clinton already fully authorized Bush to use military action to enforce the Gulf War ceasefire. The law and policy basis for Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox (1998) military enforcement with Saddam was operative for Bush, too.
PL 107-243 was just Bush being meticulous with the Executive-Legislative process, crossing t’s and dotting i’s. Practically, the statute really only summarized and restated the existing statutes on Iraq while updating the US policy position.
Presidential debate moderators should ask:
What wars will you initiate on your watch?
Max-1,
Winning a war means securing the peace. When we make the error of truncating the progressive post-war peace-building process, as Obama did with Iraq in 2011 – ironically calling his error “ending the war” – we invite the risk of regression to war. In this case, the risk of regression to war was severely increased by Obama’s combinative errors with the Arab Spring.
Here’s a presidential speech that’ll touch the hearts and minds of many.
Plus ca change… No big mystery here, folks. CongressWeasels on both sides get to pose and look important while they bemoan their inability to control anything. Meanwhile, the Prez bombs the bejeezus out of a bunch of people we all regard as total a******s. It’s precisely the same deal Dubya made.
About for the innocents blown up by our war machine, what we hide behind the phrase collateral damage, nobody in power really cares. They pretend to care, and we pretend to believe them.
Grammar fix: You’re correct that PL 107-243 (2002) – or, as far as I know, PL 102-1 (1991) – has not been repealed.
The American tradition…
… One president passed their war off to the following.
bc: “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.”
You’re correct that PL 107-243 (2002) – nor, as far as I know, PL 102-1 (1991) – has not been repealed.
However, it’s debatable whether the AUMF fits the current situation.
As stated, the 1st condition that can activate PL 107-243 is the “the continuing threat posed by Iraq”, ie, Iraq the nation, ie, at the time, Saddam’s regime. Iraq is still a nation, but post-Saddam Iraq nation is not a “continuing threat”. If the wording was ‘in’ or even ‘from’ Iraq, your argument would be easier to make.
The 2nd condition that can activate PL 107-243 is UNSC resolution. In 2003, Saddam was demonstrably in multiple breach of the UNSC resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire, most notably the 06MAR03 UNMOVIC Cluster Document finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” that triggered OIF.
Indeed, the UNSC resolutions that underlay the US-led post-Saddam peace operations would have fit the current situation like a glove. The problem is the UN terminated those UNSC resolutions concurrent with the 17NOV08 SOFA agreement between the US and Iraq, and the 17NOV08 SOFA agreement expired in December 2011.
There are other plausible sources of legal authority Obama can cite to intervene. But the 2002 AUMF appears to be inactive unless Obama stretches the meaning of the 1st condition or goes to the UN for a new resolution to activate the 2nd condition.
One would have thought that with all the “terrorism” the NSA is listenening into …
… That the NSA would have detected the rise of ISIS and headed it off well before it took over 40% of Iraq.
Just sayin’