Washington (CNN) -- As President Barack Obama
considers military action in response to Bashar al-Assad's alleged use
of chemical weapons in Syria, a debate over whether he must seek
Congress' consent has surfaced. It's a debate with which the president
is extremely familiar.
As a senator, Obama was a staunch critic of President George W. Bush for not obtaining renewed authorization for
the war in Iraq. He blasted his predecessor in 2007, saying, "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."
Additionally, as a
candidate for president, Obama reaffirmed that sentiment. He told the
Boston Globe in a questionnaire, "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."
"It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action," Obama added at the time.
As a senator, Vice
President Joe Biden had a similar take. During a campaign speech in Iowa
in 2007, he said "the consequences of war -- intended or otherwise --
can be so profound and complicated that our founding fathers vested in
Congress, not the president, the power to initiate war, except to repel
an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens."
Although they have held
such strong views in the past, their positions have dramatically
changed. They did not seek Congressional consent when the United States
engaged its military in Libya, nor when Obama expanded the war in
Afghanistan. In both instances, members of Congress complained loudly,
but the president defended his decision.
In the case of Libya, the president said at the time that U.S. troops would not be on the ground and so the law didn't apply.
Why the change of heart?
"Where you stand on this
issue depends on where you sit, and right now (Obama) is sitting in the
Oval Office," said Kal Raustiala, professor of law at UCLA.
It's a long-running battle of checks and balances. And it's one that the president usually wins.
The debate revolves around the War Powers Resolution.
Congress passed the
measure in 1973, overriding a veto by President Richard Nixon. It was
meant to rein in the president's ability to involve the United States in
overseas conflict.
The law requires that
the president seek consent from Congress before force is used or within
60 days of the start of hostilities and that the president provides
Congress with reports throughout the conflict.
It hasn't really worked that way.
It's a debate that has
played out time and time again in U.S. history: a president is
considering intervening in an international conflict, Congress wants a
say. Specifically, congressional opponents want the ability to block the
intended military action.
Since 1973, the United
States has used military force in Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Iraq
in 1991, Haiti in 1994 and Kosovo in 1999. In all those instances,
presidents -- both Democrats and Republicans -- sidestepped Congress and
committed U.S. military forces without obtaining Congressional
approval.
Congress did, however,
provide Bush with its approval for the war in Iraq in 2002 and the war
in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Like a replay of the
past, some members of Congress are demanding the president seek the
legislative branch's approval before any action is taken in Syria. But
it's highly unlikely the president will take that formal step.
Congress complains,
sometimes loudly, but has rarely done anything about it. It could pass
laws further restricting the president's authority, but hasn't done so.
The legislative branch could also withhold funding of any military
conflict, but that's another avenue it has failed to take. Additionally,
the judiciary has been reluctant to settle the dispute.
In the White House's
daily briefing, press secretary Jay Carney said the administration is
consulting with Congress. Obama "had discussions with relevant members
of Congress, and leaders of committees and leaders of the Congress at
large," he said.
In response to Carney's
statement, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Michigan, who called military action
without congressional approval "unconstitutional" and is among a group
of lawmakers who are demanding the president seek their approval,
tweeted, "yeah right."
But while members are
likely to write letters, pontificate and even challenge the president to
seek consent, the president is likely to continue to sit on the winning
side of the issue.
0 comments:
Post a Comment