Steve Benen
flags how Republicans are responding to questions about why Congress hasn't been eager to have a debate or vote on a resolution authorizing President Obama's air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria:
Asked to explain why Congress is satisfied doing nothing, House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office told Roll Call, “As the Speaker has said, he thinks it would be good for the country to have a new authorization for the use of military force covering our actions against ISIL, but traditionally such an authorization is requested and written by the commander-in-chief – and President Obama has not done that.”
Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) added that Obama “should seek a new congressional authorization.”
That may sound like they are passing the buck, and on a rhetorical level they obviously are, but given that President Obama is acting without their authority, those statements are effectively statements of support for his actions. Why? Because not only do both Boehner and Cornyn say they support the strikes, they also don't challenge the president's view that he has the authority to conduct them.
There are some members of Congress—mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans—who are making the case the president is exceeding the bounds of his legal authority, but for the most part even they say they still support the underlying policy. The arguments that they are making are thus mainly legalistic.
Their arguments are good—certainly better than asserting that the 2001 and 2003 AUMFs authorize the military campaign (but that even if they don't, the president has the authority anyway)—but as University of Chicago Law School Professor Eric Posner argues, the legal system doesn't provide a real check on the modern American president's ability to conduct war: politics does. When President Obama sought authorization for air strikes in Syria last year and then backed down from his plans to attack Assad's regime after failing to get that authority, the reason wasn't that he was worried about legal constraints—it's that there was very little political will to launch attacks against Syria at the time.
Now things have changed—politically speaking. Congress has still yet to act, but this time, the political climate is more receptive to launching a new military campaign. Many in Congress no doubt believe—rightly—that legally speaking, their authorization is required for launching what amounts to a new war. But as evidenced by the fact that Congress hasn't voted and won't vote until after the election, most members are perfectly content to take a wait and see approach and stick their fingers in the wind a couple of months from now, after the ballots have been cast.