Was Syria attack legal? Framers would say no: Column
There's a lot of talk about the policy questions raised by President Trump's missile strike on Syria — whether it was morally justified by the Syrian government's hideous chemical attack on civilians, what comes next, how Russia might react, whether the U.S. should take further action, and whether the strike will have an effect on the murderous Assad regime.
These are important questions, and certainly must be addressed. But here are two more: Did the Trump administration have legal authority under the Constitution to act without congressional authorization? And if the answer is yes, what legal limits — if any — apply to potential actions against other countries or in other situations? It will be up to lawmakers in Congress to answer these questions, and it would be a dangerous mistake for them to punt.
Recent events provide useful context. In the late summer of 2013, the Obama administration was preparing to launch a military strike in Syria. The circumstances were very similar to what happened this week: There was evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad had ordered a deadly chemical attack against Syrian civilians. However, as the Obama administration prepared to respond, more than 100 members of Congress, mainly Republicans but some Democrats as well, signed a letter explaining that the president could not act alone, that he needed congressional approval.
As these members of Congress explained, the Constitution does not permit the president to unilaterally order military action unless the United States or Americans face a direct threat of attack. That is an accurate description of constitutional law. Article I of the Constitution assigns Congress the power to declare war. Records from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 indicate that the framers believed the president would have authority to act unilaterally only in an emergency, to repel a sudden attack. At the time, Donald Trump agreed, tweeting that “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria — big mistake if he does not!”
President Obama agreed to seek congressional approval, but it never came. In 2013, the U.S. took no military action against the Assad regime.
In 2017, once again, there were indications that Assad had ordered a chemical attack that killed civilians, including children. This time, a new president did not seek or wait for legislation. He ordered a missile strike without congressional authorization.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/was-syria-attack-legal-framers-would-say-no-column/ar-BBzxolC?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp
= new reply since forum marked as read
