Should Obama get approval from Congress before striking Syria?
The president didn't ask permission before involving American forces in Libya. The legislative branch wasn't exactly thrilled.

A U.S. strike on Syria is a near-lock, with American officials declaring their certainty that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossed President Obama's "red line" by using chemical weapons earlier this month to kill hundreds of people in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.
With China and Russia holding veto power on the U.N. Security Council, the United States will surely have to forge ahead without U.N. approval. But will Obama take military action without the imprimatur of Congress, too?
If Obama was formally declaring war with Syria, this wouldn't even be a question. The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. However, the last time that actually happened was right before World War II. America has fought many wars since, but semantics have sometimes been employed to bypass Congress. Other times — like in the run-up to the Iraq War — Congress has authorized military action without actually declaring war.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Other times, presidents have just gone ahead on their own. Two years ago, for instance, Obama decided to intervene in the war in Libya, and launched missile strikes without the approval of Congress, raising the hackles of lawmakers in both parties.
This time around, things might be less controversial for Obama. First of all, many lawmakers in both parties support military action against Syria. Plus, the scope of that action would likely be limited. "The Obama administration would likely argue it's not proposing war, just, potentially, a missile strike that would represent a slap to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and caution that there's more where that came from," writes Jennifer Skalka Tulumello in the Christian Science Monitor. In this view, a U.S. military strike would be "an effort to dislodge [Assad], but not a full commitment of troops, money, and time."
Still, getting Congressional approval would "give Obama political cover," writes Tulumello, especially considering he won't have the backing of the United Nations.
Going to Congress could also help the president find the weaknesses in his own plan, argues The Washington Post's Jonathan Bernstein:
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Congressional hearings before the Iraq War revealed that the administration was seriously low-balling its estimates of the difficulties of a postwar occupation. Because Bush and his White House treated that as a problem of inconvenient spin, it didn't do them any good. But a better president would have realized that the problem was substance, not spin, and that it couldn't be wished away. [The Washington Post]
Some lawmakers are already criticizing Obama for potentially launching missiles before Congress reconvenes in September. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) called the issue "too great for Congress to be brushed aside, while Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) claimed that, without broad Congressional support, "the order of a military attack on the government of Syria would be illegal and unconstitutional."
Perhaps the best justification for going to Congress comes from the White House itself, via Vice President Joe Biden, who spoke out against the possibility of Bush taking military action against Iran in 2007:
It is precisely because the consequences of war — intended or otherwise — can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down … allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die … and ensure broader public support.
The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. [Biden, via BuzzFeed]
Keith Wagstaff is a staff writer at TheWeek.com covering politics and current events. He has previously written for such publications as TIME, Details, VICE, and the Village Voice.
-
Book reviews: ‘Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America’ and ‘How to End a Story: Collected Diaries, 1978–1998’
Feature A political ‘witch hunt’ and Helen Garner’s journal entries
By The Week US Published
-
The backlash against ChatGPT's Studio Ghibli filter
The Explainer The studio's charming style has become part of a nebulous social media trend
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
Why are student loan borrowers falling behind on payments?
Today's Big Question Delinquencies surge as the Trump administration upends the program
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
By The Week Staff Published
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published