Presidential War Powers

[Keith Broaders]

FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 2013
Does President Obama have War Powers That Allows Him to Attack Syria without Congress's Approval?
By Douglas V. Gibbs

Ah, the age old question between the ability to wage war, and declare war. This could get interesting.

When President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq, he decided to run the idea by Congress, just out of political courtesy. Congress concurred, and the war began. Later, George W. Bush was criticized for his decision, and accused of running an illegal war because Congress never declared war. They also accused Bush of selling the war on false evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction, one piece of evidence being audio recordings of Iraqis discussing the use of chemical weapons.

Now, President Barack Obama is mulling over the possibility of a military strike against Syria. He, and his democrat minions, the same people that criticized Bush for his willingness to wage war, and claiming that the war was illegal because it was never declared by Congress, is now saying Congress can't be trusted because of the Republicans, and that Obama can wage war without even consulting Congress. Oh, and they say they have evidence that Syria used chemical weapons. . . audio recordings of Syrians discussing the use of chemical weapons.

In 2011, President Barack Obama decided to send military personnel into Libya to assist a rebellion against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Obama initiated this military operation without congressional approval, and without a declaration of war, and then stated he was not required to do so because it was "Kinetic Military Action."

So the question is, is it constitutional for a President, be it Bush, or Obama, to wage war without a declaration of war from Congress?

In the case of both Presidents, they were well within their authority to wage war. I am not saying the decisions were good decisions, or bad decisions. I am just saying that they were well within their constitutional authority to wage war, even if they did not consult Congress.

I think it is a wise move for the President to discuss any intentions to use the military with his military advisers, and Congress, before taking any military action of any kind. However, regardless of the wisdom of the decisions, the Commander in Chief can indeed constitutionally wage war without a declaration of war, and even without conferring with Congress before making the decision.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese says on the subject that the President has the sole power to wage war under the Constitution.

“Protecting the nation requires a unity of purpose and faculty, and it cannot be devolved to a committee or Congress,” he explains.

The President has the authority to wage war, Meese went on to explain, because in times of crisis, no time should be wasted in legislative debate and maneuver. Thus, “the Constitution place[s] paramount authority for national security in a single executive.”

Under the Articles of Confederation, which was "the constitution before the constitution," Congress had the sole power to wage war. The executive, under the Articles, had little power as it was, and in the case of war, had no say in the matter whatsoever.

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the founders were searching for a more balanced approach to the question of war. Congress, being populated by representatives of the States, were often in their districts. Unlike the politicians of today, the representatives were statesmen who spent more time at home than in Washington. If Congress had the sole power to wage war, the time it would take to get the message to the Congressman, and then for that Congressman to travel back to Washington, would be far too long when faced with the need for a quick decision regarding the issue of war.

On August 17, 1787, the delegates debated heavily over war powers. The fear was that by giving the President the sole power to wage war a tyrannical president would use those powers in an abusive manner. To give Congress the sole power of waging war was inefficient, and had proven to be a poor decision under the Articles of Confederation.

A compromise was needed. The founders needed to create both an efficient system, yet one that used limiting principles, and a system of checks and balances, to protect the nation from a potentially tyrannical executive.

The power to wage war was granted to the President, and the power to declare war was vested in the Congress. The President, as a result of those debates, was granted the power to wage war whenever and wherever he deemed necessary. However, that war could only be formally declared by Congress. If Congress disagreed with the President's decision to wage war, we are reminded that the Congress has the power of the purse strings, and has the power to deny the President the funding to wage war. So, though the President has the power to wage war as he believes is necessary, that power is checked by the Congressional power of being able to defund the war.

If a President continues to wage war, even after congressional attempts to cut off funding, the Congress also has the power to impeach the President as well.

The decision to wage war often demands immediate action. In such a case, only the President has the ability to quickly step in and order the troops into battle to protect the national interest.

An added point is that both Barbary Wars, waged by Presidents Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, were undeclared wars. If the President must wait for a declaration of war in order to wage war, then that would be to suggest that Thomas Jefferson, and the father of the Constitution James Madison, acted unconstitutionally to wage war against the Barbary Pirates. Did Jefferson and Madison go against the Constitution? Or were they waging war as Commander in Chief using the war powers granted by the Constitution?

The answer can be found in the constitutional debates on August 17, 1787.

Therefore, even though I feel it would be a disastrous decision, Obama can use the military against Syria if he so wishes.

Oh, and as for the argument that the War Powers Act of 1973 places limits, and requires congressional approval, that law is only a piece of legislation, and cannot change the authorities granted by the Constitution. Such changes can only be made by amendment. The War Powers Act, in that sense, is an unconstitutional law.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs at 6:00 AM

Rebuttal by Thomas E. Woods

[Keith Broaders]

SECTION. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President is the Commander in Chief only after he has been called into service by the Congress as the result of a Declaration of War. The President can not assume the role of Commander in Chief and wage a war until it has been declared by Congress.

[Keith Broaders]

The Constitution only authorizes the use of military force in the defense of our homeland. If we are actually invaded like we were in 1941 the President has the right to retaliate if he is doing so in an effort to defend our country. The President does not have the Constitutional authority to attack another nation because of a real or imaginary threat. If the threat is real, the decision to go to war is to be in the hands of the people through their elected Congressional representatives.

Waging war is what happens after the nation has declared war. I idea that you can attack and kill your neighbor is not something you would expect from a so called Christian nation. Allowing the President to wage war based on what he thinks is best is a very dangerous position. If the President has the power to wage war without a formal declaration of war it seems as though the office of the President should be changed to the Military Dictator of the United States.

[Walter Myers]

Mr. Gibbs asked:  "Does President Obama have War Powers That Allows Him to Attack Syria without Congress's Approval?"  

The answer is HE HAS APPROVAL OF THE CONGRESS.  It was given the Presidency on March 9, 1933 via the Emergency Banking Act.

Messages citing problems and an implied need to gain control of the Federal government in order to correct them - but which never offer a clue as to how we might do so - are a lost opportunity. Please consider including the following in your releases.

 Peaceful options for gaining control of the Federal government are:

1. elect a President and/or totally new Congress having the courage, knowledge and integrity to honor their oath of office.
2. state action to restore the integrity of the common law grand jury and ballot boxes. (http://www.thecnc.org/Documents/JuryBoxIntegrity.htm and http://www.thecnc.org/Documents/BallotBoxIntegrityBill.htm)
3. Repeal the 17th Amendment.  (http://www.thecnc.org/Documents/17thAmendment.htm)

 NOTE - Each option demands responsible state action! Getting it will require a team such as described at www.thecnc.org/Documents/1776.htm. A communications system to help patriots locate and communicate with others in their county and state is available at www.ConstitutionClubUSA.com. Go to it, click on county and states and register.

 The alternatives to peacefully gaining control of our Federal government is for our law enforcement personnel (military and civilian) to honor their oath of office and/or formation of the militia authorized by Art. II of the Bill of Rights.

 Please include this thought in your releases as helping to populate the communications system with a few million people will take everyone’s help.

[Theresa Kelly]

I just listened to a constitutional scholar and former presidential candidate refute your claim.

To launch a preemptive strike against Assad without congressional approval is unconstitutional, and it would also be a violation of The UN Charter and The Geneva Conventions! It is against international law to launch an attack against another nation because you ASSUME they might strike you, or you ASSUME they are a threat to your national security!

International law does not allow us to assume anything!

Furthermore, Americans need to take a historical look at the reign of Assad! Syria under Assad was a place where millions of Christians Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace! There where entire towns and communities built and occupied by Christians with no threat to their lively hood. 

Headlines released two days ago show that Obama is now openly arming rebel terrorist. These same terrorist are the ones who are beheading Christians, massacring innocent civilians, killing young Assad soldiers and eating their organs. I've seen the videos released by Glenn Beck and others and its horrifying!

Kinetic military intervention is a spin word! We have committed acts of war in these countries!

Bush lied to the American people about Iraq and Afghanistan having weapons of mass destruction, castle like bunkers built of stone and the correlation of Iraq's involvement to 9-11! The intelligence reports spouted by Rumsfield Rove Rice and Bush turned out to be fabricated lies!

Now we have Obama spouting the same old propaganda but this time around the American people are not buying into it!

We know from the German intercept of communications, video feeds of rebels, Russia's intelligence report, that the rebels, not Assad was responsible for the sarin attack in Syria! We also know that Obama, Kerry, McCain, Graham are lying to us that Assad is a threat to our national security!

[Theresa Kelly]

Agreed!

Keith Broaders said:

The Constitution only authorizes the use of military force in the defense of our homeland. If we are actually invaded like we were in 1941 the President has the right to retaliate if he is doing so in an effort to defend our country. The President does not have the Constitutional authority to attack another nation because of a real or imaginary threat. If the threat is real, the decision to go to war is to be in the hands of the people through their elected Congressional representatives.

Waging war is what happens after the nation has declared war. I idea that you can attack and kill your neighbor is not something you would expect from a so called Christian nation. Allowing the President to wage war based on what he thinks is best is a very dangerous position. If the President has the power to wage war without a formal declaration of war it seems as though the office of the President should be changed to the Military Dictator of the United States.

[Byron Dale]

What Constitution  are you reading It clearly is not the Constitution of the United States of America? Please site the part of the Constitution where the power to declare war where the any one was given the power of authority to kill people without a declaration of war    

[Kathy Lynch]

Thanks for the clarification! - Kathy