![sudden attack th sudden attack th](https://www.onrpg.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SA2_668x227.jpg)
In trying to flesh out the question of whether the President can act without Congress, a few sections of the Constitution appear crucial in providing an answer.
![sudden attack th sudden attack th](https://ssl.pstatic.net/mimgnews/image/421/2021/04/29/0005320653_001_20210429112104299.jpg)
On the one hand, the Article II creates the President the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” On the other, Article I invests the Congress with substantial powers over the military, the most notable being the authority “To declare War…” Questions over who ultimately retains the authority over military decisions, such as the one to attack Syria, are practically unavoidable. It divides responsibility for military actions between the Executive and Legislative Branches. It seems strange that there should be a dispute about something as momentous as who retains the authority to launch military strikes, but the Constitution allows for such a discussion. Although he evaded the question several times, when pressed Secretary Kerry finally responded that the President “still has the constitutional authority, and he would be in keeping with the Constitution.” During the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearing on proposed strikes against Syria, Senator Rand Paul asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether the President would initiate action even if Congress refused to support him. When dealing directly with Congress concerning Syria, the Administration reiterated its authority to use force. I don’t believe that I was required to take this to Congress.” Since relatively few lawmakers have supported the strike, many have been wondering: Would the President have the authority to launch an attack without the formal support of the legislature? During his trip to Sweden, the President said, “As commander in chief I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. In the face of this opposition, the Obama Administration maintains that he has the authority to act regardless of congressional disapproval. Only a handful of lawmakers have supported action against the Syrian regime, raising the question of whether the President will even find the votes necessary for Congress to approve the use of force. We are, however, making the case that, regardless of what the President decides to do, he should seek authorization from Congress first and abide by its decision, even if it is contrary to his plans. Let us point out up front: This article is not designed to say whether or not the United States should attack Syria in response to its use of chemical weapons against its own people. A military strike would be momentous enough, but this debate has also become the occasion for an important national discussion over the role of Congress in directing American foreign policy. (Image credit: National Archives and Records Administration)Ĭongress is debating whether to approve the use of force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in response to its use of chemical weapons contrary to international standards. The official copy of the War Powers Resolution, passed over President Nixon’s veto in 1973.