Should presidents have to seek congressional approval before sending forces into conflict?
Posted at 5:00 AM on March 23, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(36 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government, Security
Critics from both parties question President Obama's use of U.S. forces in Libya without seeking congressional approval. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress authority to declare war. Today's Question: Should presidents have to seek congressional approval before sending forces into conflict?
Comments (36)
NO. The President is the National Command Authority. The Congress -- this Congress -- in particular would shriek & wail & debate forever (in 30 second sound bites).
Who is the leader of our country anyway? President Obama or congress? I think our president has the right to do as he wishes for the US. NOT CONGRESS. Isn't that why he was elected? Or does congress think he was elected to be a scapegoat for them?
To those Americans that don't think Pres. Obama should help the citizien protesters of Lybia survive, it is an odd coincidence that Quadafi holds the same opinion ie: the murder of Lybian people is O.K..
I find it interesting that Obama went to the UN for permission but didn't go to congress. Should our foreign policy really be decided by a foreign body that doesn't really have the best interests of the United States in mind? If the interests of the United States aren't at issue here, should we be involved at all?
Sometimes you need to have a 'executive action' when approaching congress would jeopardize the safety of people.
If it proceeds to actual war and not a defense of people then the president should, and will approach congress that its entering the level its actual war.
Many a president has acted in such limited ways.
Some not so much.
Vietnam was one where it was clearly a act of war and yet we called it a policing action.
Korea as well if I am right.
Our invading Panama was called a police action, granted limited, but still over kill for a small country.
I am not happy with the action, but note it is done for limited action, rules, and in defense of people woefully out gunned. And based on the action limitation I am sure even in the White House the debate is not over and being watched.
Maybe the issue is how do you define War and limited Policing action.... Sometimes you need executive action in times of crisis and a immediate decision is needed.
Again, not happy, but feel so far it is not a war action.
Why bother? When ever the President wants to go to war, he always gets a rubber stamp approval from Congress anyway. It happened with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, The Gulf War, the Iraq War, perhaps any other war as well. Does anybody remember when Congress did not approve going to war? Now the concept of Congressional approval for going to war is supposed to convey a sense of national unity or conviction in the decision. Even when the President feeds us a line of bull as a reason for going to war, somehow Congress is obligated to approve. I wonder. Would we have ever invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, (ESPECIALLY Iraq), if Congress had not approved?
Where was this outrage when GWB misled us into Iraq?
Yes.
Article 1 -Section 8 of the US constitution says
The Congress shall have Power To ....To declare War
The president doesn't have this power.
and shooting at military targets is 'an act of war'.
correction to earlier post_
"Libya was NOT attacking the US_ thus, the President had no 60 day allowance for authority to bypass Congress by directing our military to engage in air strikes. The law is clear here.
The law is clear_ the president can order military action for up to 60 days before Congressional approval provided___ the threat is to America, that it is a direct threat. Clearly Libya was attacking the US, and the president does NOT need to have approval from any U.N. or Arab coalition to act. Obama ignored Congress just as he has done before on so many other actions. In the words of his leader, Nancy Pelosi siad, "We have to pass the Health care bill so_ we can see what is inside it.." A lack of true leadership in Obama is evident.
That is why Congressman Jason Chaffetz sent a letter to demand that Attorney General Erick Holder respond to the SEIU Union leader, Steven Lerner's call to collapse the financial market and effect chaos while using Union money to support that behind the scenes.
need more facts? see the taped speech of Lerner advocating Economic Terrorism against the USA, at Beck site or The Blaze. See Rep Chaffetz's letter to the White House on 3/23/2011. Lerner has been consulting with Obama's admin for the past two years just as the other Union leaders have been there.
Two weeks ago, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense -- no irony intended -- was vvery clear. Establishment of a no-fly zone would require operations that would be an act of war. De facto the US is at war with Libya.
Congress and the President were given the heads up and none of them made an effort to fulfill their constitutional and legal obligations they swore an oath to uphold.
Nothing new here, whether for acts of war, upholding habeas corpus (on which the Constition is also very clear), or laws or treaties that have the power of law.
Politicians wrap themselves in the flag, raise the founding fathers to demigods and the Constitution to a holy script and then metaphorically emunctorially evacuate on the lot of them.
Listening to the debate and reading here, it would seem that for many, if they've bothered to read it, the Constitution is optional. And there, as Ben Franklin would have said, goes the Republic.
If I recall my history correctly, the US has not declared war since WWII. There has been no official declaration of war since then even though we've had a number of conflicts. The president does not need a declaration of war to engage troops.
Ideally yes but remember that this congress has yet to pass an annual budget and the fiscal year is half over. In order to react in a timely way, Obama acted without congressional approval. He did, however, consult many experts in military and political areas and he made sure we have a true coalition in our actions.
Would love to get the reaction from someone who's actually in the military (or their spouse, parent, or child). If you're out there, please let us know your thoughts.
Personally, it sends chills down my spine that these decisions are made with such disregard for congressional or public approval, whether we're talking about Iraq or Libya or any other "armed conflict" such as Vietnam. Just because the term "war" is rarely used (I think our last war declaration was WWII, please someone correct me if I'm wrong), it's difficult now to believe that what starts as a quick intervention won't lead to seven or eight years of fighting, or more.
I continue to be a firm Obama supporter and always have been, however, I am completely disappointed and outraged that he has allowed this to happen once again. Shame on him. I hope that he can figure out how to get us "uninvolved" as quickly as possible with the fewest number of people getting killed.
Yes, but only if you wanna adhere to the word and spirit of the Constitution.
We should impeach Obama and any future president who spills our nation's blood and spends our treasure without first seeking congressional approval.
Obama is a hypocrite who needs to show that he's a tough guy.
posting suggestion: can you please implement a check to deny posts when >30% of the characters are in the capital letter ASCII range (65-90)?
It depends on the circumstances. If surprise-attack air strikes are the extent of the conflict, then no. If we're talking about a prolonged air war limited to bombings and missile strikes, then Congressional authorization would be necessary. As for a full-scale boots-on-the-ground invasion, then a Congressional declaration of war would be necessary.
Yes, unless it would be impossible to schedule a Congressional vote before an imminent disaster, such as the impending slaughter in Benghazi. In those cases, a Congressional vote should be scheduled to determine whether the hostilities should continue. Truman was the first president not to seek a Declaration of War. That precedent should be reversed.
Absolutely, but this is not about Republicans or Democrats. Lately both have gone off on their own. I'm not a conservative, but I have to stand with Ron Paul on this one.
How come it was "unpatriotic" to ask such questions when Bush was lying us into Iraq, but not when a Democrat is president?
It would be unfair to conflate the terms "conflict" with "war" by comparing the military action taken against Iraq in 2003 with Libya in 2011. Attacking a nation to depose its head of state under questionable pretenses is one thing; enforcing a no-fly zone over a nation that is using its air power to bomb its own people is entirely another.
Yes in this case. If only to get everyone on record. He spent time at UN, NATO and Arab League, why not Congress as well? He wants the Arab league on record saying "yes"; why not local congressional leaders as well?
yes i think so-its part of checks and balances and balance of power in government unfortunately things are promoted without consoltation!
YES I THINK SO BECAUSE IT SHOWS A BALANCE OF POWER AND CHECKS AND BALANCES!
NO PROBLEM .... as long as the automatic 3% federal/national sales taxes kicks in until the expense of war is paid off ..... what ... what ? there is no automatic "war-tax" that kicks in ..... oh well now I really don't understand that other presidents advice to go shopping.
Should presidents have to seek congressional approval before sending forces into conflict?
If it means a prolonged involvement then yes, but the event in Libya is obviously a humanitarian effort. We are trying to save the lives of civilians from a leader who obviously has lost (never had?) good intentions. I would hope that another country did the same for us if we ever had the same situation.
To further the argument: what is a conflict? Is it fighting an enemy country? Is it fighting a group of people spread across multiple countries? Could a conflict happen within our borders (what if Washington wanted to secede and were willing to take up arms? would we send troops to attack fellow civilians?)
There's a lot of grey area in any of these arguments, and no matter how the Libya thing played out Obama's opponents would have complained. If he didn't send in troops then he'd be called a "scared to act with moral values", etc...
Conflict?? Our fighter jets bombing targets and the armed personnel, buildings, tanks, planes of any nation is an act of WAR.
It is remarkable how grown men think that tweaking nouns can alter what is true, and even more amazing is that we allow politicians to get away with it, conflict after bloody conflict.
We have a Constitution , perhaps we should make politicians take a civics course as our high school students do, and pass it before their names can be put on the ballot.
Only Congress can declare WAR,or CONFLICT whatever they want to call IT!
Why ask Congress? Why not go directly to the ones who really call the shots, the plutocrat campaign donors?
"What really gets me about this Libya deal is that it was in no direct retaliation for something they did to the USA."
If you change "Libya" to "Iraq" and make that statement 8 years ago, I would agree completely. At least we're not sending ground troops this time.
How can you be the Commander in Chief and not have the sole authority, responsibility, and accountability to order troops into war? In times of crisis, the President needs the freedom to act decisively and swiftly. The process of getting congress’ permission will delay action and poses risks. We all know how swiftly congress acts. Let’s rely on the judgment of the person we elected to lead our nation and armed forces. If they act in bad faith, there is a process for that.
Of course unless in your campaign you pompously said:
“In a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, Obama was asked about the president's constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking authorization from Congress. Obama said the president doesn't have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve a threat to the U.S.”
It is a far stretch of the imagination that Libya is a threat to the U. S.
Oops, Obama now amends this to include “U.S. national security interests”. I think he lifted these words from a Bush or Reagan speech. Republican, Democratic: all birds of the same feather.
Obama is finding it is a lot easier to “referee from the spectator’s gallery than from the court?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/22/general-us-us-libya-congress_8368794.html
YES. But our current President is above the Constitution, didn't you know that?
What really gets me about this Libya deal is that it was in no direct retaliation for something they did to the USA.
Yes. Congress needs to reclaim that power/responsibility before it is lost from them forever.
I think there should be, at minimum, a check & balance here. Why couldn't the president seek approval from the top 3 ranking Representatives & Senators, regardless of party, to, at the very least, give a measure of bipartisan, populist agreement to military action?
Ideally, yes a president should have to consult with congress before taking aggressive military action. Unfortunately the sad state of the American mind rewards a happy rush to war over thoughtful consideration of a proposed action. Maybe a more effective control on actions would be something more of a general referendum once every year or so on continuing the commitment.
Ideally, yes a president should have to consult with congress before taking aggressive military action. Unfortunately the sad state of the American mind rewards a happy rush to war over thoughtful consideration of a proposed action. Maybe a more effective control on actions would be something more of a general referendum once every year or so on continuing the commitment.
Generally I would have to say yes, however, I do understand the President has a 90 day window when US citizens or property is attacked. Whether that the case or not in Libya is unclear. I would suggest he seek approval at this time, in case the action become protracted. President Bush did seek and receive approval in case of Iraq, however support wained over time and as casualties and cost rose.
| March 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock