President cannot commit troops
|
|
September 1, 2013 |
By Congressman Raul Labrador
While President Obama publicly states that "we
have not yet made a decision” about attacking
Syria, leaks from the Administration indicate
that an attack is likely. In fact, the
Washington Post calls it “imminent.”
But what the Administration doesn’t realize is
that Congress and the American people are
speaking out against an attack – both for
constitutional reasons and also because of
legitimate policy concerns – and we may yet be
able to stop the president from going down this
reckless road.
The Constitution is quite clear that the
president cannot commit our troops to war
without the approval of Congress. Our first
president, George Washington, put it best when
he emphatically stated that the "Constitution
vests the power of declaring war in Congress;
therefore no offensive expedition of importance
can be undertaken until after they shall have
deliberated upon the subject and authorized such
a measure.”
For this reason, it is imperative that President
Obama consult and receive authorization from
Congress before ordering the use of U.S.
military forces against Syria.
The president should not be under any illusion
that Congress will be silent should he move
forward without our consent.
When it comes to the power to declare war,
Congress’ rights, and the president’s
responsibilities, are not open to
interpretation; they are established facts.
What’s at stake here isn’t the wisdom of going
to war with Syria – that is a debate that can
and should take place – it’s the question of
whether the president will follow the
Constitution and whether the Congress will
demand that he follow it.
On Wednesday, I joined 140 Members of Congress
in signing a letter to President Obama reminding
him that “engaging our military in Syria when no
direct threat to the United States exists and
without prior congressional authorization would
violate the separation of powers that is clearly
delineated in the Constitution.” In a major
rebuke, the letter, which was circulated by Rep.
Scott Rigell (R-VA), was signed by 18 members of
the president’s own party.
We, in Congress, have a constitutional
responsibility to debate the wisdom of a war
with Syria. Among the questions we need to raise
are - How many American lives may be lost in
such an attack? What is the evidence that the
Syrian government used chemical weapons against
its own people (the AP reported on Thursday that
the evidence is "not a slam dunk")? What threat
does Syria pose to the United States that
necessitates such an attack? What are the stakes
for Israel during and after American military
action? What would the political landscape of
Syria look like after our military strikes? How
would suck an attack impact our policies against
Iran? After military action, what would our
nation’s responsibility be to Syria and the
region?
These are a few of the many questions raised by
the possibility of American military action
against Syria. As the Washington Post
editorialized this week, “Under the
circumstances, the president would be wise to
seek the maximum feasible congressional
involvement” and “Mr. Obama can and should
formulate a sustainable strategy and then make a
convincing case for it to the American people
and their elected representatives.”
President Obama has yet to make a credible case
for action in Syria. The United States – as a
free people – should be eternally vigilant
against threats to our liberty, both foreign and
domestic. But we must do so after robust debate
in Congress about the appropriateness of action
in Syria and a vote for or against
authorization. |
|
Questions or comments about this
article?
Click here to e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
