Although he faces a truly unique dilemma, President Obama is not the only president to bump up against the war-making restrictions placed on presidents by the Constitution.
That Constitution does give the president the power to make war because the Founders believed, correctly, that a “committee” — which is basically what Congress is — would be unable to respond promptly to sudden attacks, or make quick decisions about fighting wars. But only Congress has the power to declare war because the Founders worried a president with that power would use it to remain in power. After all, a nation at war tends to rally around the president.
This division of power has historically led to arguments over the definition of “war” — Harry Truman sent troops to Korea without congressional authorization by calling it a “police action” — as well as when an “emergency” or “sudden attack” has occurred, etc. And those arguments took a quantum leap during the Vietnam War when Congress, fed up with the Nixon administration’s illegal usurpation of its authority to declare and fund America’s wars, passed the War Powers Act, which allows presidents only 180 days to engage in hostilities without further congressional authorization.
Which brings us to today’s constitutional argument over President Obama’s approach to the fight against ISIS. Essentially, he has four options. Ask for congressional authorization as the Constitution requires, rely on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) statute passed by Congress in 2002 (giving President Bush authority to fight al Qaeda by whatever means necessary), rely on the War Powers Act, or, as he did in bombing Libya, ignore Congress and unconstitutionally go it alone.
The problem with AUMF, as the president has acknowledged, is that it does not apply to organizations or states not in existence in 2002, of which ISIS is one.
The problem with the War Powers Act, other than its debatable constitutionality — again, only Congress has the power to declare war, yet the War Powers Act (albeit temporarily) gives the president that power — is that the fight against ISIS will certainly last longer than 180 days.
That leaves the president with the choice of asking Congress for a war resolution or unconstitutionally going it alone, neither of which he wants to do, not because of any constitutional worries — the Constitution means very little to Obama — but because fighting ISIS either way will alienate his political base. This is the real dilemma for this president. He and many Democrats in Congress campaigned on the promise to get us out of wars, not to start them. And this dilemma is exacerbated by the fact if their base is angry enough to desert the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, both the House and Senate will overwhelmingly go Republican.
