Pres. Obama has already elevated and perpetuated the notion that the Executive decides when to war

[bigtree]

. . . based solely on their unilateral decision to declare their adversary's military action a 'threat' and their own military action a defense of 'national security'.

So dubious and self-serving is this president's autocratic declaration of his authority to initiate military attacks in the case of Syria, that the bar has been lowered for successive presidents to declare their own autocratic authority and push forward into war without taking Congress and the American people with them.

No matter if President Obama proceeds to order military strikes against Syria or not, he's already paved the way for a nation led to war without their consent.

[scarletwoman]

1. Excellent point. Rec'd. (nt)

[reformist2]

2. I also am disturbed that on this constitutional issue, he's worse than Dubya.

[alsame]

3. And that's exactly why all the

neo-cons were supporting a strike without a Congressional vote.

[ProSense]

4. This is simply

"No matter if President Obama proceeds to order military strikes against Syria or not, he's already paved the way for a nation led to war without their consent."

...your own frame. The War Powers Resolution allows the President to act, but he must report to Congress within 60 days. Obama didn't set that precedent.

Clock Ticking on War Powers Resolution

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

<...>

Under the War Powers Resolution, when a president introduces troops into hostilities without prior authorization from lawmakers, he must withdraw them if 60 days pass and Congress has not since voted to approve the deployment. Pressed on several occasions this week to say whether the administration believes it is bound to comply with that requirement, several top officials demurred.

Attention to the issue swelled following an account in Talking Points Memo about a classified briefing with Congress by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on March 30. That report, however, was apparently overstated, according to Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who questioned Mrs. Clinton at the closed-door meeting.

Citing an unnamed Republican lawmaker who attended, the report said Mrs. Clinton had said the administration “would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission” and that she “plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama’s power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions.”

<...>

But in a phone interview, Mr. Sherman said that he had actually asked whether the administration believed it was bound to obey the 60-day deadline. And Mrs. Clinton gave no definitive response either way, he said.

- more -

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/clock-ticking-on-war-powers-resolution/

Going through Congress is a precedent, no matter how you slice it.

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

Crash Course: A Guide To 30 Years Of U.S. Military Strikes Against Other Nations
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php

[RetroLounge]

5. Get Your War On!

Woo hoo!



RL

[bigtree]

6. as we've seen in recent history, that requirement is mostly a formality

. . .after forces have been committed as Congress is more than likely to be loath to withdraw funding (which is their ONLY lever in influencing the president's behavior) once the President has initiated action, the mission is underway and our troops are already deployed in the field.

Pretending the reality has been otherwise is just another false justification to unilaterally take the nation to war.

[ProSense]

8. Right, Obama didn't set the precedent.

Presidents have routinely conducted military action without going through Congress. President Obama's action is precedent-setting

Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy To The President's Remarks On Syria

August 31, 2013

(Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt., President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and chairman of the State Department and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee) has participated in all of the leadership conference calls that have been held with the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense about the situation in Syria.)

"The President is right to seek authorization from Congress for a response to the Syrian regime's clear violation of international law, in the use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. I continue to oppose introducing U.S. troops into this conflict, and I continue to believe that seeking congressional approval of military action is called for. Given the positions taken by past presidents, the President's decision to seek congressional approval is especially commendable. I look forward to this debate, and we should have it openly in the Congress."

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/reaction-of-senator-patrick-leahy-to-the-presidents-remarks-on-syria

[bigtree]

10. My concern is about the amount of authority we allow the Executive to unilaterally initiate war

True, that the president did go to Congress - as did his predecessor, Bush in his rush to war in Iraq.

In that cynical effort, Bush also asserted that he did not need the approval of Congress to initiate military action. Bush, in fact, rushed past whatever admonitions in that resolution sought to steer him back to the Security Council and seek a UN mandate before rushing to war; pushed UN inspectors out of the way; and invaded.

Yes, the UN did, subsequently, sanction Bush's takeover of Iraq, but it was little more than a coercion by the U.S. after we'd already invaded and occupied the country and installed our own handpicked 'authority' there.

Likewise, Congress, in their first affirming vote for Bush's invasion, their 'supplemental funding' and their votes for the defense budget, were similarly loath to take ownership of the autocratic march into war by limiting or withholding funds and other support.

That's the that loophole in the War Powers Act, which allows presidents to 'invade first and notify Congress later' which is a slippery slope to war without the full consent of the governed.

That's made all the more glaring in the case of President Obama's appeal to war and his declaration of his authority to initiate military action toward Syria without the pre-approval of Congress based on his solitary interpretation of a 'threat' to the nation and a 'defense of our national security'.

He's done nothing in this instance to change the dynamic where presidents rush past Congress, and has actually perpetuated and preserved that assumed prerogative to unilaterally initiate war that Bush and all of the rest asserted by claiming that power; in the case of Syria, a most dubious assertion of a threat or national interest.

[rug]

12. He will be cited as precedent next time.

[99th_Monkey]

7. O has insisted that "POTUS has the authority anyway" without Congress. Yep. nt

[Benton D Struckcheon]

9. I think you mistook him for Truman

There hasn't been a declaration of war since 1941. Obama didn't start the trend of which you speak. I'd say he may have ended it, but future Presidents will just take this as a lesson NOT to take any action their contemplating to Congress, and take advantage of the 60 days the War Powers Resolution gives them.
There is no Constitutional solution to this. The Constitution provided for a Navy without any sunset clause, unlike the one it has for the Army. Any nation with a coastline needs a Navy to protect it. That means there will always be warships ready and available for strikes like the one that almost happened to Syria. You could get rid of the Army and this problem would still be around. As Commander in Chief with a Navy, you could launch a Tomahawk whenever and wherever. As the Marines are part of the Navy, you could just "Send in the Marines", which has been the default solution in lots of cases. So there you have it.

[bigtree]

11. didn't start it. Correct. Perpetuated it with his own declaration of that intent

. . . at a time where I believe many of us thought we had repudiated the last autocratic rush to war.

I realize that politics and law dominate that question, but it's a rather simple one for someone out here looking for more connection between the will of the people and the actions of the executive in their decision to initiate war.

[Wilms]

13. ^