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.