Gregory D. Johnsen:
Later today President Obama will unveil his plan to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, through an expanded military campaign in Iraq and likely Syria. But by ordering the military into action without explicit congressional authorization, Obama is falling back, at least in part, on the same controversial legal theories of executive power that he once rejected.
Not everyone is surprised by the presidential about-face. John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer and one of the primary architects of the “strong executive” theory of presidential power, told BuzzFeed News, “Obama has adopted the same view of war powers as the Bush administration.”
In a preview of his speech on Sunday, Obama told Chuck Todd of NBC’s Meet the Press that he was “confident that I have the authorization that I need to protect the American people.” Obama repeated that same line in meetings with foreign policy pundits on Monday and again in meetings with congressional leaders on Tuesday.
That authority is Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which names the president commander-in-chief of the military. But not everyone is convinced that the clause, which opens Section 2, gives the president the authority Obama currently claims. Among those doubters is Obama himself, or at least the pre-presidential version.
In late 2007, as part of a candidate Q&A, Obama told Charlie Savage, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” And as Obama made clear in his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press, this is not the case in Iraq or Syria. “I want everybody to understand that we have not seen any immediate intelligence about threats to the homeland from ISIL. That’s not what this is about.”
This is about prevention and preemption, exactly the sort of thing that candidate Obama said presidents were not authorized to do without congressional approval. But Congress seems to have little desire to vote on military action ahead of midterm elections in November, and, after last year’s confused approach to military strikes in Syria, Obama seems to have just as little interest in asking permission. Instead, whether out of expediency or outlook, he appears to have altered his views on constitutional power, and in doing so found himself relying on the same theories he once criticized.
The most obvious precedent for Obama’s claim of expansive Article II power is a memo written nearly 13 years ago by John Yoo, who is perhaps most well-known as the author of the so-called “torture memos.” Like Obama, then-President George W. Bush was looking for a way to use military force as a preemptive tool. Frustrated with a Congress that, even in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks refused to give the president preemptive power, Yoo came up with an innovative solution: He read it into the Constitution.
Relying on Article II, Yoo wrote: “The president may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist attack of September 11.” The fact that Congress had explicitly rejected the preemption language didn’t matter because, in Yoo’s reading, the president already had that authority.
Just because ISIS is not a state doesn’t mean it cannot declare (by its actions) war on the USA.
When ISIS beheaded our journalist, James Foley, they declared war on the USA.
As such, Alexander Hamilton’s rule applies.
There is no need for Congress to declare war back on ISIS.
We are already in a state of war.
My big problem is if Obama asks for a ”blank check,” from Congress to war with ISIS.
Especially it is a problem if Obama wants to arm so-called Islamic moderates who have already shown their propensity to work with ISIS, to arm ISIS, to even sell our citizens to ISIS.
We should have elected Bush again.
The “Obama Doctrine”
When all else fails (i.e., everything Obama has tried), fall back on what Republicans do to achieve success.
But, then again, if his plan doesn’t work, we already know what his excuse will be.
Obama admits ISIS was Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Greggie’s head explodes.
@retire05: Well said my friend. What I like is 0-blama used the term coalition. I want to see a list of the countries!! Bush had 37 countries WITH boots on the ground. Democrats accused Bush of going it alone. What a load of crap 0-blama has got us into because he failed to be a President!! Yes poor Greggie will figure some way to blame Bush for this!!