The British can be so quaint sometimes.
Last week, for instance, Parliament voted against entering into war in Syria, and as a result -- get this -- the U.K. won't enter into war in Syria.
On this side of the pond, President Obama evidently doesn't think he needs congressional authorization to send the U.S. to war. He showed this with his unauthorized attack on Libya in 2011, and he's hinting that he'll do it again with his talk of bombing Syria.
It's tempting to accuse Obama of unprecedented executive power grabs -- especially considering his power grabs on domestic issues like health care and the environment.
But as Obama takes us into his second unauthorized war, he is actually keeping up a fine American tradition of expanding executive war powers.
Let's start with the law: The Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water ...."
James Madison crafted that language at the Constitutional Convention, changing the phrase "make war" in an earlier draft to "declare war." This change was seemingly aimed at allowing the President to defend the U.S. from an attack, but bar him from entering the country into a war of choice. Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, supported Madison's language, saying, "the Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war."
One of the first tests of the Constitution's war powers provisions came in 1793 when General Andrew Pickens wrote George Washington that "a demonstration of the power of the United States to punish the Creek [Indians] is the only measure which can be adopted to secure from their cruel depredations the Inhabitants of the South Western frontiers."
Washington's view on the matter, as quoted by conservative journalist Terence Jeffrey of CNSNews: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."
"No offensive expedition of importance," without Congressional approval was Washington's standard -- the same as Madison's.
Congress tried to codify this understanding in 1973 with the War Powers Resolution. The resolution stated the President could "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities" only in the case of "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
As a senator, Obama agreed with this view. "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," Obama said in 2007.
All of this would seem to suggest that the President could not attack Syria without congressional authorization because Syria isn't attacking us or even threatening us.
But that's not how Presidents have actually behaved, at least not since after World War II. Harry Truman never got a declaration of war against North Korea, instead calling it a "police action." Vietnam was an undeclared war, too, and at first our troops there were called "military advisors." By the time it was over, 58,000 American soldiers had been killed. Bill Clinton never got permission to bomb Bosnia, arguing he was just enforcing a peace treaty.
President Bush, at least, got congressional authorization for his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama, of course, intervened in Libya's civil war without congressional authorization. His administration explained this wasn't war, it was merely a "kinetic military action" that would last "days, not weeks."
Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry initmiated that the administration didn't feel the need to get a vote from Congress to attack Syria. Both suggested that "consultation" with Congress would be sufficient. That seems to mean mostly briefing congressional leaders.
"Congressional leaders are not 'Congress,' " Rep. Justin Amash fumed on Twitter. "And [Obama] needs approval, not consultation."
Amash articulated the feelings of more than 140 members of Congress -- mostly Republicans -- who signed a letter demanding Obama get congressional approval before war. But lawmakers typically step aside when the President seizes Congressional war powers. A floor debate could get messy, and abdicating responsibility gives Congressmen plausible deniability if things go bad.
If President Obama takes America to war in Syria without legal authority, he won't be following the law -- but he will be continuing a tradition.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted attcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment