Syria: the case for action

[jmm99]

From the WSJ (link); also a clean pdf file is attached.

Analyzing this in reverse order, section (b)(1) sanctions the President's powers under the War Powers Resolution:

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization.-Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

What are the scope of presidential powers granted by this AUMF (a rather typical AUMF) ?

(a) Authorization.-The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to-

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups of other state or non-state actors), within, to or from, Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

Has Congress ever shot down an AUMF requested by a President ?

While the President is taking some risk here (of an adverse vote), the AUMF gives him far broader powers than his proposal to shoot off some missiles (whether 24 or 240). Looking ahead, the operative clauses (a) & (b) could provide something of a precedent for a future Iran resolution.

I'd vote against this particular AUMF (because of my personal worldview); but my bet is that Congress will go along with it. If that happens, the legal basis for "responsibility to protect" will be expanded to include intervention by an individual state. R2P has been viewed as requiring UNSC approval - or at least regional organization approval.

Regards

Mike