Empire

[ProSense]

1. This

"The authority the WH is seeking is just an opportunistic attempt to be granted as much authority to meddle in Syria's civil war as they can manage out of Congress.

If that wasn't arrogant enough, they insist that NONE of that congressional (or UN) authority is actually needed for the President to unilaterally to ramp up and deliver a military 'message' to Assad."

...has been a standard for Presidents.

President Clinton launched three illegal wars against Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023589265

"BOTH Bush and Obama made their representations of the threat to the U.S. in order to declare and secure their unilateral authority to use our military forces (at least initially) any way they see fit, without congressional pre-approval - justified almost entirely in their view by their opportunistic declarations that our security is threatened.

That was the slippery slope that Bush used to war. That's the slope that Pres. Obama used to escalate Bush's Afghanistan occupation far beyond the former republican presidency's limits - with the catastrophic result of scores more casualties than Bush to our forces during this Democratic administration's first term and scores more innocent Afghans dead, maimed, or uprooted. "

This is a bit disingenuous, espeically given the historical context above. Syria is not Iraq, and that speaks to my point about this being blown out or proportion (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023593859#post3).

Obama is making his case to Congress.

Congress, be careful what you wish for

By Steve Benen

<...>

Over the last several days, members of Congress have spoken out with a variety of opinions about U.S. policy towards Syria, but lawmakers were in broad agreement about one thing: they wanted President Obama to engage Congress on the use of military force. Few expected the White House to take the requests too seriously...Because over the last several decades, presidents in both parties have increasingly consolidated authority over national security matters, tilting practically all power over the use of force towards the Oval Office and away from the legislative branch. Whereas the Constitution and the War Powers Act intended to serve as checks on presidential authority on military intervention abroad, there's been a gradual (ahem) drift away from these institutional norms...until this afternoon, when President Obama stunned everyone, announcing his decision to seek "authorization" from a co-equal branch of government.

It's one of those terrific examples of good politics and good policy. On the former, the American public clearly endorses the idea of Congress giving its approval before military strikes begin. On the latter, at the risk of putting too fine a point on this, Obama's move away from unilateralism reflects how our constitutional, democratic system of government is supposed to work.

Arguably the most amazing response to the news came from Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence & Terrorism, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee:

"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria."

This is one of those remarkable moments when a prominent member of Congress urges the White House to circumvent Congress, even after many of his colleagues spent the week making the exact opposite argument.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273174-congress-be-careful-what-you-wish-for

There were constant cries for Obama to go through Congress, and people were expecting a strike without Congress being involved.

ACLU Urges the President to Obtain Official Congressional Authorization Before Taking Military Action in Syria

WASHINGTON – In a letter sent to the White House today, the American Civil Liberties Union urged President Obama to refrain from initiating military action in Syria until Congressional votes have occurred in both chambers, authorizing such use of military force.

While the ACLU does not take a position on whether military force should be used, the organization has consistently insisted, from the war in Vietnam through both wars in Iraq, that Congress give advance authorization for the use of such force.

“Before any decisions are made regarding U.S. military action, the president, according to our Constitution, must obtain congressional authorization for use of any military force,” said ACLU Washington Legislative Office Director Laura W. Murphy. “Mere consultation between the White House and certain congressional leaders does not provide sufficient authority to the president to unilaterally use any military force. Floor debate should commence as soon as possible and certainly no later than the date on which Congress reconvenes.”

“Use of military force by the administration in Syria in the absence of congressional action would strike at the very heart of the fundamental principle of separation of powers that is at the core of the Constitution,” says the letter, signed by Murphy.

- more -

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-urges-president-obtain-official-congressional-authorization-taking-military

The President is doing exactly that.