Does POTUS have legal authority to wage war in Syria absent congressional approval?

[HomerJS]

Here are the rules via the War Powers Act for a President to take action without Congressional approval.

check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

None of these seem to apply in Syria since we are taking sides in a civil war. This was Obama's problem he was willing to go "all in" but wanted an AUMF from Congress and they wouldn't give it to him.

Does Trump have the authority to wage war in Syria without Congressional approval?

 

[K1052]

No, but it's not like Congress is going to actually do anything about it and hasn't for many years.

That would require initiative, responsibility, and an actual interest in discharging the duties/powers of their branch bestowed upon them by the constitution.

 

[FIVR]

Constitutionally? No.

Practically? Yes.

 

[Sunburn74]

Constitutionally? No.

Practically? Yes.

Agreed. People in Congress say they want in on the decision making but do they really want in? I doubt it.

 

[thraashman]

According to Trump, no. But only when the President is a black man.

 

[IronWing]

No.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has never been successfully used by Congress, and is very probably unconstitutional. In any case the President has 60 days to justify his actions after the fact, so if all Trump wants to do is play with his toys for a bit by firing some missiles into Syria there is nothing Congress can really do as long as he is still not firing them 60 days later, then according to the reading of it, he could just wait a few days and fire some more and claim it to be a new incident and get another 60 days. It is a very poorly written law, and that is probably on purpose. It is when it comes to ground troops when it becomes harder to skate around it, but Obama did so in Syria, and now Trump has done so as well, as per the act both of them should have sent to Congress several rounds of justifications for continued troop deployment in Syria and has not.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has no teeth, when a President simply ignores it the only recourse Congress has is to use it as a reason to impeach the President, and they are not going to do that.

Congress could take a more active role in the use of the Military if they would take a more direct role in military funding, but that would mean having to justify a lot of the pork that they load into military budgets, and no one wants to shine a light on that.

 

[Genx87]

No, but it's not like Congress is going to actually do anything about it and hasn't for many years.

That would require initiative, responsibility, and an actual interest in discharging the duties/powers of their branch bestowed upon them by the constitution.

This is pretty much it. We have been at war in Syria for years. We were at war in Iraq for years. We have been in Afghanistan for 16 years.

 

[Genx87]

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has never been successfully used by Congress, and is very probably unconstitutional. In any case the President has 60 days to justify his actions after the fact, so if all Trump wants to do is play with his toys for a bit by firing some missiles into Syria there is nothing Congress can really do as long as he is still not firing them 60 days later, then according to the reading of it, he could just wait a few days and fire some more and claim it to be a new incident and get another 60 days. It is a very poorly written law, and that is probably on purpose. It is when it comes to ground troops when it becomes harder to skate around it, but Obama did so in Syria, and now Trump has done so as well, as per the act both of them should have sent to Congress several rounds of justifications for continued troop deployment in Syria and has not.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has no teeth, when a President simply ignores it the only recourse Congress has is to use it as a reason to impeach the President, and they are not going to do that.

Congress could take a more active role in the use of the Military if they would take a more direct role in military funding, but that would mean having to justify a lot of the pork that they load into military budgets, and no one wants to shine a light on that.

The congress has power. Dont fund the war. But neither party is willing to do that.

 

[IronWing]

It's the cravenness of Congress that allows presidents to wage unconstitutional wars.

 

[Indus]

Constitutionally? No.

Practically? Yes.

Conservaterrorists shit all over the constitution except on the 2nd amendment.

 

[bshole]

It's the cravenness of Congress that allows presidents to wage unconstitutional wars.

When was the last time the American people stood up and said not in our name? I have no problem believing that Congress would rubber stamp ANY and ALL bombing runs on other countries.

Would you be surprised to know that the United States is responsible for the deaths of 4 million Muslims since 1990? At what body count does the word genocidal start to arise in response America's actions (Hitler hit the label at 6 million)?

NOTE: I realize that the source I have included is biased towards my point of view. No need to point that out to me.


http://www.middleeasteye.net/column...ave-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Would you be surprised to know that the United States is responsible for the deaths of 4 million Muslims since 1990? At what body count does the word genocidal start to arise in response America's actions (Hitler hit the label at 6 million)?

Be sure you don't conflate the reasons for deaths. It may seem irrelevant, but it isn't.

 

[Stokely]

Donald Trump thinks not! Well, at least in 2013 when a dirty Kenyan was in charge he thought it...

"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!"

And my favorite Trump quote on Syria, especially considering the past week:

"No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools."

 

[justoh]

If Yes doesn't win then there's no hope. Cmon guys. We need more yes votes.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The congress has power. Dont fund the war. But neither party is willing to do that.

As I said to do that Congress would have to take a close look at the funding of the military. Minor wars like what we are involved in over in Syria is literally paid for out of the Military's petty cash fund, so to defund it would require granular control of what the military spends money on, something congress can do, but nobody in Congress wants to do that.

 

[IronWing]

As I said to do that Congress would have to take a close look at the funding of the military. Minor wars like what we are involved in over in Syria is literally paid for out of the Military's petty cash fund, so to defund it would require granular control of what the military spends money on, something congress can do, but nobody in Congress wants to do that.

While Congress certainly has a leash to use wrt to funding, the Constitution is also very clear that the power to declare war lies with Congress. The President is to execute wars that Congress declares, not go off on foreign adventures on a whim or when his domestic agenda happens to be in the toilet. Congress has been negligent in defending its prerogatives for decades.

 

[JSt0rm]

republicans blocked obama from acting in syria before.

 

[realibrad]

No. Republicans like little chicken shits voted against the bill, but Obama did not need their approval for action. He sought it, and did not get it, but did not need it. Obama had the ultimate call and he did not make it. Republicans did not have the call and, while they had been calling for action, voted against it but did not have the authority to stop action.

 

[SMOGZINN]

While Congress certainly has a leash to use wrt to funding, the Constitution is also very clear that the power to declare war lies with Congress. The President is to execute wars that Congress declares, not go off on foreign adventures on a whim or when his domestic agenda happens to be in the toilet. Congress has been negligent in defending its prerogatives for decades.

That does not seem to be true, as early as 1798 President John Adams (one of our Founding Fathers) believed that the President did not need Congress' approval to use the military. The Constitution says that Congress has the right to declare war, but does not say that the military can only be used with a declaration, and right away it was determined that 'declaration of war' meant 'total war' and not any use of the military.

 

[JSt0rm]

No. Republicans like little chicken shits voted against the bill, but Obama did not need their approval for action. He sought it, and did not get it, but did not need it. Obama had the ultimate call and he did not make it. Republicans did not have the call and, while they had been calling for action, voted against it but did not have the authority to stop action.

sure buddy. So the republicans are critical of obama not acting in syria and they voted against him acting in syria but he should of just done it anyhow. This makes sense to you.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

TBH, this may be another one of those things that the FF couldn't have predicted. Had they known that instantaneous worldwide communication would have eventually been a thing, maybe it would have warranted say, a 3-day approval requirement rather than a 90-day one. Or not granted the President 'emergency' control over the armed forces.

 

[realibrad]

sure buddy. So the republicans are critical of obama not acting in syria and they voted against him acting in syria but he should of just done it anyhow. This makes sense to you.

Yep, because, that is the power given. Ultimately the POTUS has the power to act and the sole power to decide not to. War is different than action. Obama knew this and outright said it. Just because the Republicans were shitheads and did not approve the bill does not take away from that power. That is how it works, buddy.

 

[HomerJS]

No. Republicans like little chicken shits voted against the bill, but Obama did not need their approval for action. He sought it, and did not get it, but did not need it. Obama had the ultimate call and he did not make it. Republicans did not have the call and, while they had been calling for action, voted against it but did not have the authority to stop action.

Without it Obama could only act for 60 days (war powers). What then? I doubt any long term strategic goal could be accomplished in 2 months. That would have been half assing it.

Republicans are always bitching about not following the Constitution and then they don't follow the Constitution.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yep, because, that is the power given. Ultimately the POTUS has the power to act and the sole power to decide not to. War is different than action. Obama knew this and outright said it. Just because the Republicans were shitheads and did not approve the bill does not take away from that power. That is how it works, buddy.

So the president can drag the country into war without congress and once everything is shit he can go to congress and get approval? Sounds like the republican way.