Attacking Syria: Congress should insist that its vote be *binding*

[MannyGoldstein]

The President has said that he'll give Congress the ability to express an opinion before attacking Syria, but that their vote will not be binding on him.

Seems to me that Congress should insist that their decision be binding. Unless the US is in imminent danger - which we clearly are not - Congress must vote to begin hostilities. The Imperial Presidency needs to end.

[cthulu2016]

1. Binding both ways?

I don't know if Congress would have the power to compell a President to launch some cruise missiles. They could declare war, of course, but the COC would get to wage it.

Outlawing that any act of war be made on country X? Yes, they could probably do that. (It would have to supercede the war powers act for its purpose)

I don't know if we have ever had a Congress declare a war the executive was against fighting. (If not, an intriguing datum)

[gopiscrap]

2. I tend to agree

[joshcryer]

3. Except if it's true that the rebels have Sarin gas...

...the President would simply say "the chemical weapons must be stopped from proliferating."

I think it would be better for Congress to say that the President must take it to the UN. Then the President has an out and can wash his hands of his morally superior statements on this issue.

[JI7]

10. maybe he doesn't want to

"wash his hands of his morally superior statements on this issue."

that's what it seems like to me as time goes on.

[PoliticAverse]

4. How would they do so ? n/t

[NightWatcher]

5. If Congress says No and he does it anyway, he'll finally

have given the right a legitimate reason to hate him as well as a reason to scream for impeachment.

[Jefferson23]

6. Why do they think they have the right under international law to strike Syria?

No one within the Congress will discuss this?

[Scootaloo]

18. As we've been learning for over thirty years...

"International law" only applies to nations that can't bomb us back.

[Jefferson23]

19. Quite right. I would like very much to hear the conversation on the floor of the

Congress nonetheless..they should not ignore it.

I also want to see how the administration will frame it legally..as Clinton did, calling
his attack humanitarian and at the same time stating it should not be considered
precedent. That was a twisted pretzel, imo.

I have been reading some opinions from experts on international law and they
claim the area can be gray..one actually said it is illegal, but do it anyway! Others
have said Syria signed in 1925 against use of chemical weapons and the lack
there of to sign again in the 90's is irrelevant.

I'm hoping that Obama wants out, and is looking for keeping the ball in their court
to dump this outrageously irresponsible idea to strike.

Of course the Congress could shock me and take up the approach that Carter set
forth...but that shock might give me a stroke.

[kentuck]

7. There is a separation of powers...

between the three branches of government. The Legislature cannot bind the Executive unless it is a law that is signed by the Executive. Even then, if the Executive branch finds it burdensome, the President can veto it, if the Legislature tried to make it binding.

[rhett o rick]

8. I think this is a great point. The president made it clear he wanted to punish the

Syrian government. He made it crystal clear that he didnt think he needed Congress's approval to do such. He said he would like to have Congress's blessing.

Congress should respond by saying, "Why ask unless you will abide by our decision."

Congress should refuse to vote unless the President say he will follow their decision.

[Adrahil]

9. Congress does not have that power.

Congress can decline to endorse an attack. It does not have the power to prohibit military action except by passing a law.

Constituion 101.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. I believe that only Congress can declare war.

Per the Constitution.

No?

[Adrahil]

12. Yes... But...

Not every military action requires a declaration of war.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. An act of war against a foreign government when

we're not in imminent danger seems like it should fall under Congress' purview.

Certainly many in Congress feel that way.

[Adrahil]

14. I'm certain they do....

... But there is a long tradition of action without a declaration. For example, the First Barbary War.

[Recursion]

16. The Quasi-war is another good example

Though the Barbary War has some eerie similarities to the GWOT.

[Recursion]

15. They could overturn the War Powers Act, unfortunately, that would take things back

to how it was before that, where the President had essentially complete discretion limited only by Congress's ability to refuse to pay for it.

[MFrohike]

17. There's really one way

They'd have to impeach and remove him to make any decision binding. After all, who's going to enforce a binding resolution? The legislature doesn't have that power and it'd be pretty silly to order the executive to bind himself against taking action. Sure, you can vote not to fund things, but that's just as after the fact as removal.

As the the argument about declarations of war that I saw up the thread, I think war declarations are misunderstood. The constitution doesn't mandate a particular form of declaration, so it's entirely reasonable that a congressional resolution would suffice as a declaration. As long as the Congress is consulted and passes a resolution, I find the arguments of unconstitutionality to be needless formalism. Who cares what form Congress uses if they assent to force?

The impeachment/removal bit above is definitely not a recommendation. It's just an observation, so please take it as such.