Despite his own recent statements to the contrary, President Barack Obama has no legal authority to assault the government of Syria even as “a warning shot.” Neither the United States Constitution, nor the War Powers Act of 1973 gives him such authority in the absence of an emergency that allows Congress no time to react.
Obama cannot cite the present situation as such an emergency, given his public statement that members of Congress need not act until the completion of their scheduled vacation. He has said that his proposal is “not time sensitive.” If Congress fails to approve a resolution approving acts of war against Syria, he cannot order any military assault into Syria.
On several recent occasions the President and administration officials have mentioned a “sixty day” period during which he has authority to act without approval of Congress. Such authority does not exist. It is a misreading of a provision of the War Powers Act that provides only Congress with oversight constraints on executive actions.
Section 5(b) of the War Powers Act establishes limits of sixty or ninety days on acts of the President in such emergencies. Section 8(d) ordains, “Nothing in this Joint Resolution (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President or of the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United Stated Armed Forces into hostilities or situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, which authority he would not have had in the absence of this Joint Resolution.”
It is clear from the debates of the Philadelphia Convention, the first book of Blackstone, and the 69th Federalist, that the framers of the United States Constitution meant to prohibit the President from ordering acts of war without approval of Congress, except to repel sudden attacks or deal with imminent threats against American territory, armed forces, military installations, citizens, diplomats, embassies, or commerce. If the President could commence wars of choice on his own authority, the power of Congress to declare or authorize war would be idle words, and the framers did not intend idle words. The War Powers Act does not expand the options of the President. And if the President defies the prerogative of Congress, he can be impeached.
In 1848, Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a member of Congress from Illinois, upbraided President James K. Polk for initiating a war with Mexico. Believing Polk violated constitutional provisions against war making without authorization from Congress, Lincoln explained his opposition in a letter to his former law partner, Billy Herndon, in Springfield, Illinois: “Allow a President to invade a neighboring country anytime he deems it necessary . . . and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to this power in this respect . . . This [power] our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should have the power to bring that oppression on us.”
Timely words!
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.