Britain will not join us. In a parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister’s party controls the House of Commons, a rebuke has come that many in Britain believe will echo through history as Prime Minister Cameron has been blocked by a coalition, necessarily including members of his own party, from joining a U. S. military strike on Syria. France is backing away from what earlier sounded like a commitment to join as well. The United Nations is not viable because of Russia’s veto power. Even NATO is nowhere to be seen. Indeed, NATO members like Italy have declared they will not participate without a UN resolution – which they know cannot happen.
In spite of it all, our carriers and battle groups move ever closer. We are on our own now. Syria is not an imminent threat to the United States. No one is seriously claiming that it is. Though it could become a threat if our “punishment” of Syria goes awry. And that’s a very real possibility whenever acts of lethal warfare are involved. Into this morass we tread. And this president dares goes there without Congressional authorization.
Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb [a foreign nation] without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…”
That little quote is from the Boston Globe questionnaire on executive power, published December 20, 2007. The person offering his opinion is former constitutional law professor, at the time a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and current President of the United States, Barack Obama.
In the current Syrian context, more than 100 members of congress have written a letter asking the President to seek congressional authorization before taking military action against Syria. A dozen and a half, or so, of the signatories of that letter are from the President’s own party. So far, the administration’s response is that congressional leaders have been briefed. No use-of-force authorization is on the table.
Meanwhile, back on Right Wing Ranch, the wingers are clamoring to impeach the President. The only thing holding up the rodeo is lack of a constitutionally sufficient reason. Enter Barack Obama on Syria proposing to do what he himself, former constitutional law professor, has said the President does not have the “power under the Constitutional” to do.
Do I believe a unilateral attack on Syria would constitute an impeachable offense? No. But, I don’t live at Right Wing Ranch. Do I think the wingers would use a unilateral military attack without congressional approval to demand impeachment for engaging in an unconstitutional usurpation of power? Count on it. What’s more, it might gain some traction at least on the right as they screech – they always seem to screech – that he admitted in 2007 that it would be unconstitutional were a president to do such a thing.
With the flames of impeachment lit and motivating the wingers, and with anti-war Democrats refusing to enter polling places, you can imagine for yourself what will happen in the mid-terms of 2014. And, God forbid the “punishment” of Syria goes badly or has unanticipated ramifications.
As inconvenient as it may seem, calling Congress back to consider a use-of-force resolution may be as necessary here as a special meeting of Parliament was across the Atlantic. In the end, I find myself agreeing with Barack Obama. Not President Barack Obama. Candidate Barack Obama.
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.