NBC News:
Nearly 80% of Americans say President Obama should seek congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria, according to an NBC News poll published Friday.
Seventy-nine percent of respondents say they want the president to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The New York Times:
As President Obama moves toward unilateral military action in response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people, he is doing so without legal justification and without the backing of two key institutions, Congress and the United Nations Security Council. Both have abdicated their roles in dealing with this crisis. [...]
Congress spends a lot of time jealously guarding its powers, especially when it comes to Republicans thwarting Mr. Obama’s agenda. But apart from complaining, asking questions and getting briefed by administration officials, most senators and representatives seem content to leave this exceedingly difficult decision to President Obama. They should have returned to Washington from summer vacation to debate and vote on the Syria issue. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain suffered a defeat when Parliament on Thursday voted to oppose involvement in a military operation, but at least the British lawmakers had to step up and take a stand.
Of course, Mr. Obama has not asked Congress to authorize military action. He brushed off this responsibility, required under the War Powers Resolution, when he used military force in the Libya operation, but in that case he did have Security Council approval.
Chris Edelson, assistant professor of government in American University's School of Public Affairs:
Does the Constitution authorize President Obama to take military action against Syria without congressional approval?
When he was running for president in 2007, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, told reporter Charlie Savage that "the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." That was an accurate description of U.S. law. [...]
Despite the horror of what is happening in Syria, history teaches that there is good reason for Congress and the public to ask questions. Military operations intended to be limited may turn into protracted action. Military strikes intended to be "surgical" may affect civilians. Military action against the abhorrent Assad regime may unintentionally help opponents of it, some of whom have ties to terrorist groups. As candidate Obama would have recognized in 2007, that is exactly why unilateral presidential action would be neither wise nor constitutional.
Bloomberg:
Nations such as Turkey and organizations such as the Arab League need to show solidarity with more than just tough talk. And Obama would be wise to publicize Syria’s barbaric behavior at next week’s Group of 20 meeting in Russia, the home turf of Syria’s biggest backer.
Obama would also be wise to secure the support of Congress -- with a vote. Not because the president must, but because in a democracy, the people’s representatives deserve a say in such matters. More pragmatically, without domestic support, a limited strike will lack the full moral and political force it needs to be effective. [...]
[S]topping the use and spread of chemical weapons is not just an abstract principle the world should aspire to. It is of practical, life-saving importance to all of the world’s citizens. Just ask the residents of the suburbs of Damascus.
More analysis below the fold.
Perhaps the most important opinion piece of the day comes from Steven A. Cook, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Cook, who earlier in the crisis supported the idea of some sort of U.S. intervention, now says that doing so would backfire:
The formidable U.S. armed forces could certainly damage Assad’s considerably less potent military. But in an astonishing irony that only the conflict in Syria could produce, American and allied cruise missiles would be degrading the capability of the regime’s military units to the benefit of the al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting Assad — the same militants whom U.S. drones are attacking regularly in places such as Yemen. Military strikes would also complicate Washington’s longer-term desire to bring stability to a country that borders Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Israel.
Unlike Yugoslavia, which ripped itself apart in the 1990s, Syria has no obvious successor states, meaning there would be violence and instability in the heart of the Middle East for many years to come.
Arlette Saenz at ABC News:
[S]hould the president decide to pursue an attack without congressional approval, President Obama’s actions could run counter to a statement he made in 2007 in which he said, “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
And Vice President Joe Biden made a similar claim as a presidential candidate when he said if President George W. Bush attacked Iran without Congressional approval, it would be an impeachable offense.
“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” Biden said in 2007.
More than 100 Republican and Democratic lawmakers signed on to a letter Wednesday calling on the president to seek Congress’ approval before moving forward with a strike.
Stephanie Condron at CBS News:
To launch an assault against the Assad regime that meets domestic legal standards, Mr. Obama's actions would have to pass constitutional muster and meet the statutory requirements set by the 1973 War Powers Resolution. [...]
Mr. Obama's approach follows one that presidents have taken since the end of World War II, when administrations started exercising their war powers more independently. Some administrations have argued the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has never weighed in on the issue -- leaving the extent of the president's war powers an open question. [...]
Predictably, when it comes to war powers, the president has the political advantage -- he is, after all the commander in chief. Congress, however, has the constitutional authority to declare war, so legislators do their best to keep the president's powers in check.
Tom Curry at NBC News:
Constitutional expert and American University professor Stephen Vladeck calls this “one of the more perversely gray areas of U.S. constitutional law.”
Dana Milbank at
The Washington Post:
[B]efore he sends Americans into another war, I suggest one more activity: Return to Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery. This is where those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan lie. [...]
[A]s Obama prepares for possible military action in Syria, he’s facing a choice of a minimal strike that will achieve little or greater involvement that would be costlier and still may not work. He’s sure to be criticized either way, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the prospects for success in Syria justify filling more rows of Section 60.