NYT: Military action against ISIS sets "dangerous precedent" for executive branch

[alp227]

9/12/14 editorial "Legal Authority for Fighting ISIS":

As the Pentagon gears up to expand its fight against ISIS, a fundamentalist Sunni militant group that controls large areas of Iraq and Syria, Congress appears perfectly willing to abdicate one of its most consequential powers: the authority to declare war.

The cowardice in Congress, never to be underestimated, is outrageous. Some lawmakers have made it known that they would rather not face a war authorization vote shortly before midterm elections, saying they’d rather sit on the fence for a while to see whether an expanded military campaign starts looking like a success story or a debacle. By avoiding responsibility, they allow President Obama free rein to set a dangerous precedent that will last well past this particular military campaign.

Mr. Obama, who has spent much of his presidency seeking to wean the United States off a perpetual state of war, is now putting forward unjustifiable interpretations of the executive branch’s authority to use military force without explicit approval from Congress.

[CJCRANE]

1. Boehner is playing with his monkey

[merrily]

2. Members of the House sued Obama over Libya.

In that case, the court held that the several members who sued had no standing to sue, citing, among other things, the fact that the group had not shown in any way that they represented the House as a whole.

The suit was, of course, over the Constitutional issue, given that the Constitution requires Congress to declare war. (And for damned good reason, IMO). Originally, the suit had also cited war powers legislation, which allows the President to proceed on his own for a certain period of time. However, that claim was dropped. (In my opinion the constitutionality of war power legislation is itself questionable.)

When Obama drew his "line" about Syria, a Republican started a movement to require Obama to "at least" consult Congress before taking miitary action. He got over 100 signatures from both sides of the aisle. Then, Boehner sent Obama a letter with something like 14 legal questions for Obama to answer.

So, it looked as though the House, as a body, might well take bipartisan legal action against the Executive. That whole scenario was avoided when Obama refrained from taking action.

Then, the right wanted action, so the Constitutional objections flew out the window.

Of course, none of us has standing to sue for enforcement of the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war. The standing doctrine sucks, IMO. So does the bipartisan AUMF.