Obama doesn't want your approval for Syria strikes

[morningfog]

The Obama administration has offered no credible legal authorization for a war against Islamic State, and Congress plainly will not provide one. What's going on here, asks the shade of James Madison? Has the United States completely lost the part of the Constitution that imagines Congress and thus the people as a check on the president's war powers? And if so, does it matter?

We can dispense quickly with the justifications that the administration has proffered in a piecemeal and somewhat embarrassed fashion. The 2002 authorization for the use of military force for the Iraq War says that the president can "protect the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq." But in bombing Islamic State, the United States isn't protecting itself against the threat "by" Iraq. It's protecting Iraqi residents from a threat "against" Iraq. Unless you think "by" and "against" mean the same thing, the 2002 authorization doesn't apply. This is to say nothing of the fact that the Obama administration sought the repeal of the 2002 authorization before relying on it.

The 2001 authorization is less applicable still. In it, Congress told the president he could make war on anyone he determines to have "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks. The George W. Bush and Obama demonstrations have vastly expanded this language to cover al-Qaida affiliates and spinoffs that didn't exist in 2001. But even these extensions don't cover Islamic State, which is not only unaffiliated with al-Qaida but also at war with its affiliate in Syria, known as the Nusra Front.

That leaves the last refuge of the believer in inherent presidential power: Article 2 of the Constitution, which makes the president commander in chief. As a candidate, Obama harshly criticized the Bush administration's near pathological reliance on the idea that this clause trumped all other legal restraints on the president when he was protecting the country. As president, Obama has relied on inherent presidential powers to an unprecedented degree.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-warpowers-comment23-20140923-story.html

[malthaussen]

1. Congress long ago cravenly surrendered the powers entrusted to them.

As far as I am concerned, it was an act of stupendous cowardice to do so. All the justifications and hair-splitting since are just kabuki theatre.

-- Mal

[jwirr]

6. Agreed. If I am not mistaken congress did not declare war on North Korea and has not declared on

any war since then. That way they can keep their "innocence" but still get the campaign funds from the MIC lobbyists. Cowards is a good name.

[JI7]

2. Obama's position on military strikes seems to be that if it's something he thinks

should be done it should be for a reason good enough in itself and politics and polls shouldn't matter.

if he seriously wanted to strike at assad during the chemical weapons thing he owulod have done it .

[morningfog]

4. He wanted to last year. He was pressured into

going to congress. When it was clear he was going to lose there, he stepped back. And lo an behold, here we are a year later, bombing Syria and training rebels to take down Assad. Second try's a charm.

Obama's bombing policy is whatever he can do without too much noise from the people. That's why he relies on drones, well until now.

[JI7]

5. if he wanted to he would have done it just as he is doing now

[leftstreet]

11. He and Kerry barely ForrestGumped their way out of that

After the Brits said NO, Obama and Kerry were left looking weak and ridiculous, and completely out of touch with what citizens wanted

[Erose999]

3. By "Congress" you mean the same fuckheads who voted for the first Iraq war. John "whiskey barrel on

a stick" Bohener, and all the rest. Do you really think they'd have stopped the war?

[phantom power]

7. Congress apparently rates voting on war somewhere below 'vacation' in their priority list.

[KG]

8. it's a bipartisan middle finger

[leftstreet]

9. I trust Obama to do the righ...center-right thing n/t

[Vattel]

10. Yes, Obama is full of shit on this issue. He is usurping powers that don't belong to him.

He doesn't care because he can get away with it.

[Enrique]

12. as this writer and many other DUers point out

Congress is perfectly fine letting Obama go without their approval.