fbpx

Does the President Have Authority to Bomb ISIS in Iraq without Congressional Authorization?

This is an interesting question that raises many of the same issues as the US involvement in Libya and the proposed involvement in Syria. The possible bombing of ISIS, of course, raises additional issues.

There are two possible bases for action by the executive without congressional authorization. First, the executive might rely on statutory authority that Congress provided in the past. There is the 2002 Iraq AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force), which provided that “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to . . . defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Jack Goldsmith argues that this provision authorizes the proposed US bombing, based on a textual analysis. Wells Bennett contends that this textual language should be limited by the context of the AUMF – focused as it was on Saddam Hussein – as reflected in its preamble and other provisions. Interestingly, Robert Chesney argues that the 2001 AUMF linked to al Qaeda might provide the authority, despite the disagreements between ISIS and al Qaeda.

The second possible bases for unilateral executive action is Article II of the Constitution – specifically, the Commander in Chief and Executive Power clauses. Mike Ramsey powerfully argues on originalist grounds that the President would not have the authority to take action if ISIS if it were considered a state. But since ISIS is a non-state actor, he only tentatively leans toward saying that the President lacks the authority.

Another argument that denies that the President has the power to exercise unilateral execution action is Jack Goldsmiths’, but Mike Ramsey raises serious questions about it.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on June 20, 2014 at 17:26:09 pm

Ramsey seems a little too equivocal and as for his claim that there is noting textually that limits Presidential "warmaking" to "important" or "national interest" limitations (while textually correct) is a bit beside the point and avoids the issue of whether or not "all is permitted" that is expressly not forbidden - and this is an issue that has never quite been resolved.
If my failing memory still serves, the only discussion I know of concerning this matter was a discussion during the convention where it was decided to not limit Executive "war" or "hostile action" to a specific grant or declaration from the Congress because at the time the Congress may not be in session - not a concern today with instant travel and communication but clearly a valid concern in the late 18th century. However, this rationale was based purely upon the Executive responding to an invasion or "declaration" by an aggressor against the US - clearly something a tad bit more than "national interest" or "important", wouldn't you say?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on June 21, 2014 at 10:58:14 am

I'll hazard a guess that given the original Authorization for War the President would have the authority. It was quite broad in it's language, naming States, groups, and individuals as possible targets. This follows from the nature of the 9/11 attacks and the recognition that conventional identification of specific national enemies had been superseded by the fact of terrorism, non-state actors.
I don't recall the focus being particularly limited to Iraq, despite ensuing events.
I might be wrong and so will diplomatically bow out.

read full comment
Image of johnt
johnt
on September 03, 2014 at 10:19:59 am

[…] he would initiate legislation giving Obama congressional power for airstrikes against the militants in Syria, […]

read full comment
Image of US government verifies beheading of Pinecrest journalist Steven Sotloff
US government verifies beheading of Pinecrest journalist Steven Sotloff

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.