Latest in War Powers Resolution: Syria
President Joe Biden sent a letter notifying the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate of the precision strikes.
On Feb. 25, Biden ordered airstrikes against targets in eastern Syria. His subsequent letter to Congress under the War Powers Resolution is notable in several ways.
The White House has released the following text of a letter sent to the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate to serve as notice of military engagement in Syria on April 13, consistent with Section 4(1) of the War Powers Resolution.
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Last week, one of us co-authored a summary of a new report on the legal and policy frameworks for the use of force and other national security operations required by Section 1264 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2018
Last week I explained that a likely major reason for the Obama administration’s switch from an Article II rationale for air strikes against the Islamic State to an AUMF rationale (2001 and 2002) was compliance with the War Power s Resolution (WPR). Section 5(b) of the WPR requires the President to “terminate any use of United States Armed Forces” 60 days after he introduces such forces into “hostilities” unless Congress “has enacted a specific authorization for such use
This morning I argued that the Obama administration had violated the War Powers Resolution unless its is correct in its contention that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs together authorize the use of force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Three follow-ups:
First, I speculated this morning that “the administration was pushed by the looming WPR deadline to switch from an Article II basis for the conflict against the
On Monday, Senator Cruz maintained that the War Powers Resolution (WPR) clock had expired because 60 days had passed since the first air strikes against the Islamic State, which the President notified Congress about in a letter to Congress on August 8. “Given that 60 days has expired,” the Senator argued, “the presiden
Over the last several days, Administration officials have tried valiantly to explain the Administration’s surprising 11th hour discovery that the 2001 AUMF and indeed the 2002 AUMF provide a domestic law basis for the U.S. use of force in Iraq and Syria.
I had a pretty harsh reaction to the administration’s claim that Congress in the 2001 AUMF authorized force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. (For a different view, see Marty Lederman’s post.) While I think the administration’s interpretation of the 2001 AUMF is unconvincing, I do not believe (as Bruce Ackerman appears to say today http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/obamas-betrayal-of-the-constit...
What Ben said.
I certainly can see why the executive branch would want to adopt a reading as aggressive as this one: it nips some War Powers Resolution questions in the bud, and helps to make it more likely that, going forward, talk of any additional congressional authorization can be held in best practices terms rather than legal ones.
But the statute that Congress passed in the wake of, and as a response to, the 9/11 attacks, read now so as to authorize the use of force in Iraq and Syria against ISIS--a group that al-Qaeda expelled publicly?