I can’t believe he asked Congress for authorization to do something he thinks he can do anyway without thinking about what he would do if they say No.
I’ll put the best possible spin on it that I can manage. As you mention, nobody (except France) is willing to go along with him on this. So he asks Congress for authorization. They say Yes. OK, then at least he has that to back him up. If they say No, then he has a fig leaf to cover up his backing down. But if they say No and he goes ahead and does it anyway, he looks ridiculous. Why ask if you aren’t going to pay attention to the answer?
He won’t be impeached over this - he obviously has the authority to do it no matter what Congress says. And it’s not going to make any difference to the Syrian war if he does it or not. But if he wants to do it, he should go ahead and do it - not fuck around pretending to ask permission that he ignores anyway.
Maybe Congress will authorize it. I hope not - it is a pointless exercise that wastes Syrian lives and achieves nothing. And at least then he can blame it on Republicans, if he can’t do it. And it isn’t really something that will blow up in his face - lobbing missiles (as I said) isn’t going to make any difference in the Syrian war, one way or another. But if Obama wants to look like a tough guy and show Assad up, he needs to do it decisively, and not dick around looking for someone to tell him he is doing the right thing.
Maybe things will go differently in the US Congress than they did in the UK.
Although you are right that the House could impeach him for it - they can impeach for whatever they feel like. But they won’t, because [list=A][li]there aren’t enough Representatives who are that far out to lunch, and the Democrats have a majority in the Senate.[/list]This is politically silly for Obama, but not a crisis. Because no matter what happens, nothing will come of it. Either Congress will authorize, Obama will shoot off some missiles, and then we go on to the next hullaballoo, or Congress will not authorize, and Obama will toss it back to the UN, and nothing will happen beyond a sternly worded resolution, or Congress will not authorize, Obama will shoot his missiles, and then we will have a couple of days of Democrats spinning and the media determinedly looking the other way as soon as they decently can, or a little before. [/li]
Then Assad will win, and Syria has a bloodbath, or the rebels will win, and Syria has a bloodbath. Business as usual, IOW.
As I said, I don’t think he’ll do it right away. He’ll wait until there is some change that he can claim creates new circumstances.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ravenman: If Congress votes “no”, how long is he not able to take action without getting a “yes” vote. I can’t see that a “no” vote is a vote to restrict action for the duration of his presidency.
But I agree it’s just possible that he actually doesn’t want to do this and is hoping that Congress will save his ass. That would be pretty risky, though, as I think they are more likely to vote “yes”.
The fact that they said “no” repeatedly, and in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 is relevant however. It’s what they do. They say no even if it was originally their own idea, they say no regardless of the harm it does the country. Anyone who condemns Obama for Congress doing what it always does was going to condemn Obama no matter what happened.
There is no answer to that question. What constitutional basis is there to say that a rejection is only good for 30, 90, 180, or whatever days? None.
If circumstances change, then we can judge at that time. For example, if Syria carried out a terrorist attack on US troops in Turkey (or wherever) then things are different.
I hope everyone can agree that if we attack Syria, it is purely a war of choice. There’s no real threat to the US here. The Syrian regime isn’t threatening any of our allies, so we have no treaty obligations here. There’s no international organization compelling or urging us to attack. It might be a good idea to depose Assad, or take a stand against CW. But the US has a choice over whether that’s the right thing to do.
The idea that the President, alone, should have the sole, unchecked power to start a war of choice is, IMHO, totally contrary to the Constitution. Congress simply has to have the last word on this potential war.
Agreed, although I wouldn’t call this a war. It certainly is an act of war, but we are not proposing an on-going engagement.
Agreed, but like I said earlier, this is a fringe view. Most people seem to think that limited strikes, like Obama is proposing, are well within the constitutional powers of the president, as CiC. No?
Why do you think Clinton was not impeached for his little Serbian adventure, and that went on for months?
Then define war. Maybe Russia’s invasion of Georgia wasn’t a war, either?
Where a President can show some type of legal cover for his actions, I think most people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I will also note that most people can’t name three Supreme Court justices, and that Columbus thought the world was flat. Where the Constitution says one thing, and the people say something else, I’ll err on the side of the Constitution.
Clinton was not impeached because the NATO agreement to stop Serbian massacres was a sufficient fig leaf to hang his hat on. I think Clinton was in error on his legal justification, as well as Truman (for Korea), Bush I (for Panama), Reagan (for Grenada), for that matter.
If we lob missiles at Syria for 2 days, and you want to say we are at war for 2 days, I won’t object. But I think that most people think of war as a prolonged conflict where one side is trying to “win”. We’re not trying to win, and Syria will not fight back.
From a constitutional standpoint NATO doesn’t mean zip, but I can see that you do actually agree with me as to limited presidential authority in starting hostilities.
Well, constitutionally, our signing of a treaty puts that treaty into the highest level of national law. At least, that’s what the constitution says…
In practice, it seems a lot easier to violate a treaty than a law, and easier to violate a law than the constitution. But the NATO treaty, for instance, says that an attack on one member is the same as an attack on all members. The Senate ratified the treaty. It’s now “law.” So if Morocco attacks Italy (to give an absurd example) that means, per law, Morocco has attacked the U.S. That would give the President the right to respond with military force…wouldn’t it?
Serious question: do our treaties really have the full force of law, as the constitution declares, or is that an ideal we don’t really live up to?
It’s an ideal that we don’t live up to. No Congresscritter is going to let a treaty trump US law. Just look at how we routinely violate the UN Charter wrt not initiating aggression.
As for my comment about NATO, it was more specific to action taken outside NATO countries. NATO responsibilities certainly carry some weight within NATO itself (that is, if Russia attacked Canada or Turkey, we’ll jump in). But Serbia and Syria are outside the NATO sphere, and NATO shouldn’t be involved in the first place.
Ah, now I see what you mean. You were contrasting your personal view of the President’s limited authority with the popular view of the people (and Congress) giving the President wide latitude to drop bombs.
I’m sure you understand that it can be confusing when you’re criticizing my posts for being out of the mainstream of what most people believe, and then you post that we are actually in agreement.
[Steven Colbert]
We’re at war, John. Pick a side!
[/SC]
And then ask for authorization again? Again, Obama has put himself into a box. Maybe Assad will use chemical weapons again. Then either Obama goes ahead and lobs some missiles without asking Congress first, in which case the natural question is “Don’t you need authorization from Congress this time? You apparently thought you did last time.” Or he asks permission from Congress again, in which case he is in the same position as he is now - looking like he doesn’t understand what his role as Commander-in-Chief involves.
He is able to take action now - he doesn’t need authorization from Congress. I said that a while back - Obama is perfectly entitled to bomb Syria whenever he feels the urge. Presidents can do that, and Congress can shut off funding if they want to, or declare war, or vote for a resolution on their own after the fact saying “Attaboy Obama - go get those Syrians”. But he has now set the precedent that he thinks he needs authorization from Congress to “take action”. He’s wrong - he doesn’t seem to be much of a Constitutional scholar, despite his background - but he asked Congress for authorization before he takes any action. Therefore he has put himself into the position where, any time he wants to bomb somebody, he has to ask Congress first. That’s dumb, like the “crossing a red line” comment. He has put himself into a position where he has to do something stupid, or wind up looking stupid if he doesn’t do it.
I think he really does want to do this. He is hoping Congress will approve it, so he will have somebody else to share the responsibility, or to have some one to blame if they say No.
As you mention, it is entirely possible that Congress will approve. Then Obama shoots his missiles, a few Syrians die, and Assad screams bloody murder in the UN and goes about his business. Then Assad uses chemical weapons again. Lather, rinse, repeat, until eventually Assad dies and we get an Islamofascist regime allied with Iran.
The fact that he is a Constitutional scholar should make you think twice before blithely assuming you know more than him about this. What he says now isn’t that he is required to ask for authorization. Rather, he’s been explicit that he doesn’t think he needs authorization, but he’s asking congress to vote on this anyway.