National Security & Defense

Trump Does Not Have the Constitutional Authority to Strike Syria

(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Unfortunately, most of our politicians ignore this section of the Constitution.

President Trump may be using his Twitter account to threaten airstrikes against Syria — but that doesn’t change the fact that he has no constitutional authority to order those strikes.

Unfortunately, the section of the Constitution that gives the power to declare war to Congress, and Congress alone, has become a section of the Constitution that most of our politicians — and our pundits — ignore. Debates on the issue these days are usually between only two sides — “He should” vs. “He shouldn’t” — while the important question of “Can he?” goes completely ignored. It often feels as though Article I, Section 8 has been all but forgotten, which is why I was so glad to see the recent comments from Senator Bernie Sanders.

“President Trump has no legal authority for broadening the war in Syria,” Sanders said in a statement. “It is Congress, not the president, who determines whether our country goes to war, and Congress must not abdicate that responsibility.”

“If President Trump believes that expanding the war in Syria will bring stability to the region and protect American interests, he should come to Congress with his ideas,” he continued.

There are many things that I disagree with Senator Sanders on (such as economic policy, spending, and health care) but here, he is absolutely right. The president has absolutely no authority to take military action against Syria. The Constitution is clear about this; it’s not hard to understand. In fact, it’s something that President Trump himself seemed to understand back in 2013 when Barack Obama was president:

Twenty thirteen Trump was right; 2018 Trump is wrong. As Representative Justin Amash explained in a series of tweets earlier this week, there is absolutely nothing in the 1973 War Powers Resolution that allows President Trump to take action against Syria. According to the resolution: “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement . . . in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” That’s it. As Representative Amash points out:

It’s true: That the Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad allegedly used chemical weapons against its own people is both sad and disgusting, but the thing is, there’s just no clause in the Constitution that makes an exception for the use of military force without congressional approval for things that are sad or disgusting. It just isn’t there, so it just isn’t allowed.

Personally, it’s my view that taking action in Syria would be a mistake. For one thing, I’m not sure what President Trump thinks it would accomplish. It clearly wouldn’t stop Assad from doing these kinds of horrific things in the future. After all, President Trump launched a missile strike against Syria in April 2017 in response t a different chemical attack, and it clearly seems that Assad has still gone ahead and done it again anyway. Striking Syria just doesn’t seem like a good use of force or resources, especially when it would threaten to put us in further conflict with Russia. I do understand that not everyone agrees with me on this, and it’s certainly something that’s up for debate.

What’s not up for debate, however, is that it isn’t supposed to be President Trump’s choice alone. The Constitution is clear.

Most Popular

White House

What Is Hillary Clinton Thinking?

When Homer Simpson looks in the mirror, he sees ripped chest muscles and arms like the trunks of beech trees. When Hillary Clinton looks in the mirror, she sees America’s sweetheart. She thinks: America adores me. She thinks: America already chose me to be president once! She thinks: Everyone is comparing me ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Grassley’s Kangaroo Court

So now it looks like next Thursday. On Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s manifestly meritorious nomination to the Supreme Court, what was supposed to be the vote out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this past Thursday now appears to be sliding into a hearing to be held next Thursday. Or, who knows, maybe a Thursday ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Censure Dianne Feinstein

Regardless of the fate of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Senate should censure the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein. Her deception and maneuvering, condemned across the political spectrum, seriously interfered with the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duty to ... Read More
U.S.

Are We on the Verge of Civil War?

Americans keep dividing into two hostile camps. It seems the country is back to 1860 on the eve of the Civil War, rather than in 2018, during the greatest age of affluence, leisure, and freedom in the history of civilization. The ancient historian Thucydides called the civil discord that tore apart the ... Read More