The Unconstitutional Strike on Syria

[babylonsister]

The Unconstitutional Strike on Syria
The Constitution still requires congressional authorization for an attack on another country. The requirement is not a formality.
Garrett Epps Apr 14, 2018 Politics


For a constitutional lawyer, the Trump administration requires a crash course in obscure parts of the document—the Emoluments Clause? The “Inferior Officers” Clause? Really?

But equally challenging is the need to keep turning the conversation back to constitutional questions that people are sick of hearing about—and, even worse, have tacitly agreed to consider irrelevant. “To see what is under one’s nose,” George Orwell wrote in 1946, “requires a constant struggle.” Orwell didn’t add that trying to point out what is under our noses can turn one into a kind of Ancient Mariner at whose approach both friend and foe are tempted to flee.

But here goes: Trump did not have the authority to order any kind of strike on Syria. Congressional authorization was needed before any use of force against Syria; Friday’s attack was unconstitutional. And his pledge that the United States “is prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents”—that is, a unilateral declaration of long-range war aims and a pledge of long-term military involvement—is about as gross a violation of the Constitution as I can think of.

The fact that Trump ordered a one-off missile strike a year ago doesn’t change that calculation. The fact that almost no one in Congress spoke up when he did doesn’t change that calculation. The fact that foreign policy commentators fawned on that decision doesn’t change that calculation. The Constitution still requires congressional authorization for an attack on another country. The requirement is not a formality. It is in the Constitution for a reason. Congress’s failure to assert its prerogatives is—even though it may have become a craven habit—a matter of life or death for a self-governing republic.

The reason, as I have written before, is that no president—not Barack Obama and not Donald Trump—has the authority under the Constitution to “declare war.” Of all the toxic constitutional developments of the Obama years, by far the most disheartening is this: Obama’s unlawful intervention in Libya garnered strong criticism; but the harshest criticism came when Obama chose to obey the Constitution by asking for congressional authorization to strike Syria. For breaking the mold of presidential unilateralism, he garnered—and continues to garner—the undisguised scorn not only of his political enemies but even of many of his friends. That hostile verdict on his presidential leadership is the clearest sign that we have entered what future historians may describe as a post-constitutional era.

more...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/the-unconstitutional-strike-on-syria/558044/

[thbobby]

1. Congress is too cowardly to assume

their constitutional duty. This has been going on since at least the Vietnam War. If we and the world live through the trump apocalypse perhaps it will frighten our country into obeying the constitution.

A very similar phenomenon is occurring with separation of church and state.

We live in a banana republic. trump is evil enough that he may frighten us into obeying the constitution. Making America great again.

[oberliner]

2. Wouldn't the Republican-controlled Congress have approved the strike?

Most Congressional Republicans have spoken out in favor of it.

[babylonsister]

5. AFAIK it was never presented to vote on. nt

[oberliner]

9. You are right

I am just wondering if it would have made a difference - or would the Congress have just approved it.

[True Blue American]

6. Not what I heard

On CNN this morning. Conservatives are protesting against the strikes.

Remember, they threatened to impeach Obama for doing the same thing.

[oberliner]

8. Was it a Republican member of Congress?

Or just some RW pundits?

I haven't heard from any Republican member of Congress expressing opposition to the strikes (although I am sure there are some - like Rand Paul, for instance).

[True Blue American]

13. Here are 2

From Ohio.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/14/two-local-republican-congressmen-question-trumps-authority-strike-syria/517129002/

Davidson replaced Boehner.he promised in his Campaign that he would not become a life time member of Congress.

I think he said 2 terms. But his District goes all the way around mine, thanks to Boehner setting his own District.

My Congress person is Mike Turner. I would not vote for him at all. Mike was a good Mayor of Dayton. Not so in Congress

[oberliner]

14. Thanks for sharing that

Certainly it would be better if this sort of thing could be debated in Congress - though Congress seems to have become as ridiculously awful as the WH.

[True Blue American]

16. You are very welcome! In case you missed

See this.

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/383211-robert-de-niro-ben-stiller-play-mueller-and-cohen-in-snl-parody

[bigtree]

11. probably would have approved it. They turned Obama down

...then threatened him with impeachment if he defied them and launched strikes.

Of course, they really only cared about defying President Obama, and opposing his unitary claim of authority to initiate conflict without their approval... only for Democratic presidents.

[oberliner]

15. The RW hypocrisy borders on farce

[Igel]

17. Hypocrisy usually is farcical.

Obama never had a motion in Congress.

Obama's administration claimed it had the authority to launch a strike and apparently drew up plans for such an attack. Many (D) supported him. Most? Dunno. He postponed plans after a (D) and (R) battle was waged in the press. International concern didn't help. But it was the same rhetoric, "think of the children." (Yeah, that's snarky, but it's equal-opportunity snark.)

At the time, of course, Trump considered the very idea of unilateral strikes to be reprehensible.

Now that Trump's in the WH, each side erased their names on their playbooks and exchanged them with their counterparts on the opposite side of the aisle.

That kind of role-switching is fairly often if you stand back. The R2P actions taken by the US in Libya were far more direct than actions taken by the US in Yemen. And while many complained about US actions vis-a-vis Libya, nobody tried to file suit to stop them. Those filing suit against the government now find the bar is lower even given less direct actions than they were in 2011 and the suit would have been "progressive against Democrat" instead of "progressive against Republican."


However, the article in the Atlantic has one giant, gaping presupposition at its core: That any attack is a declaration of war. That's not been true in a long, long time. Vietnam? I can't find any mention of a Congressional declaration of war for the Battle of Veracruz and the following US occupation of the territory. Or the Pancho Villa 'expedition'. And while we like to find fault and declare others imperfect, Wilson was until the recent zero-tolerance attitude kicked in generally considered a decent president. (Now, of course, everybody's always been horrible, until us. ... We're the fulfillment of our own highest goals.)

[Trust Buster]

3. With the political pain of their Iraq votes still fresh in their minds, republicans dont want to

Touch such a vote with a ten foot poll. President Obama asked them three times. The cowards complained about president Obama’s Executive Orders yet the hypocrites shirked their most important responsibility and still do.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Yet another item for impeachment. This is his 2nd strike, so that makes it NOT one-off

If the Mango Mussolini strikes Korea, you can expect them to strike back.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

7. Here's a good Twitter thread on the subject...

Scroll down a bit to see the 14-point thread explaining the constitutional and congressional record on this topic.

Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck
Professor @UTexasLaw.

See: https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck

Bottom line is that our Congress is a bunch of slackers.

[duforsure]

10. The GOP refuse to represent the American people,

By ignoring the Constitution now. Vote out all the GOP for doing this now. Corruption running wild out of this White House and administration, and from the GOP in Congress. It will backfire on them badly. They're enabling him to destroy our government, the rule of law, and corruptly do whatever he pleases.

[Ferrets are Cool]

12. The Constitution of the United States of America is so yesterday.

[Igel]

18. Absolutely.

Remember, it was written when American blacks were considered 3/5 of a person.

I think I heard that somewhere as a sufficient reason to consider any appeals to the Constitution as an authority to be ridiculously retrograde. It was generally applauded as wise reasoning from a precocious leader.

I agree with your sarcasm. And personally found the "wise reasoning" to be self-adoring slop.