[Expanded Answer to Question 5]
During his initial presidential campaign in 2007, Obama told the Boston Globe that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” without first obtaining Congress’s approval. For a while, President Obama seemed to try to wriggle out of that stand with respect to Syria. His press secretary Jay Carney said that President Obama stood by his 2007 statement, but that Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons posed an actual and imminent threat to U.S. national security. (He didn’t explain how he made that leap.)
Obama later argued that if chemical weapons are used on a large scale, they could affect “core national interests,” such as America’s duty to protect its allies and bases in the Middle East. That was quite a stretch from “repelling a sudden invasion” as the only exception from the requirement that Congress must authorize the initiation of war or the engagement in acts of war.
“Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith wrote . . . that ‘the use of military force in Syria is a constitutional stretch that will push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before.’ Goldsmith argued that ‘no plausible self defense rationale exists’ and that informal briefings to lawmakers will not be a substitute for congressional debate and authorization.” Liz Goodwin, “Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?” Yahoo! News, found at https://news.yahoo.com/does-obama-need-congressional-approval-to-bomb-syria--174613463.html.
Finally, after experiencing significant opposition to him going it alone with regard to bombing Syria, President Obama said he had “decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian targets,” but that he would first seek a congressional authorization for military action—even though he said he believed he could act without Congress. Congressional approval was ultimately denied and President Obama did not order the bombing of Syria.
Obama later argued that if chemical weapons are used on a large scale, they could affect “core national interests,” such as America’s duty to protect its allies and bases in the Middle East. That was quite a stretch from “repelling a sudden invasion” as the only exception from the requirement that Congress must authorize the initiation of war or the engagement in acts of war.
“Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith wrote . . . that ‘the use of military force in Syria is a constitutional stretch that will push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before.’ Goldsmith argued that ‘no plausible self defense rationale exists’ and that informal briefings to lawmakers will not be a substitute for congressional debate and authorization.” Liz Goodwin, “Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?” Yahoo! News, found at https://news.yahoo.com/does-obama-need-congressional-approval-to-bomb-syria--174613463.html.
Finally, after experiencing significant opposition to him going it alone with regard to bombing Syria, President Obama said he had “decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian targets,” but that he would first seek a congressional authorization for military action—even though he said he believed he could act without Congress. Congressional approval was ultimately denied and President Obama did not order the bombing of Syria.
The Herald-News (Passaic, New Jersey) 31 Aug. 2013, Sat. Page A1, Newspapers.com
