Obama sidesteps Congress in declaring war

As President Obama used a primetime address on Wednesday night to declare a new war in the Middle East, this time on the Islamic State (often called "ISIL" by the administration, and also known as "ISIS," or just "IS"), and detailed his strategy for "degrading and destroying" what he labeled "a terrorist organization, pure and simple," Obama left Congress mostly out of it.

And, as the reactions of official Washington rolled in, it was clear that not all lawmakers were clamoring to go on record in a midterm election year. The thorny conundrum of how to beat back IS and stabilize the region defies typical partisan lines, and some seemed content to opine on the president’s address without having to subject members of Congress to a  politically risky vote.

In a 15-minute address, Obama mentioned Congress exactly three times, asking for "support" but leaving to the imagination what that might entail while emphasizing he had the authority to act on his own.

"I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL. But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the president and Congress work together," he said. "So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger."

According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president can only deploy U.S. troops for more than 60 days if Congress officially authorizes war. But in the recent past, in conflicts like those in Kosovo and Libya, the resolution has been largely glossed over with few consequences. This time, Obama administration officials are saying that the Authorized Use of Military Force that Congress passed in 2001, to declare war against those who orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks, covers the war against IS — never mind the fact that the Obama administration called earlier this year for the legislation’s repeal.

Congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle showed few qualms with that line of thinking.

"The administration has made an effort in recent days to brief members of the House and Senate on the range of options the president is contemplating," Speaker John Boehner said in his statement addressing the relationship between Congress and the White House. "Those briefings and consultations will continue as members review his proposals, and I hope we can continue a dialogue about how to most effectively confront and destroy this enemy."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was happy to cheerlead for the administration’s strategy but also stayed mum on congressional authorization.

"I appreciate the ongoing consultations from the administration and the president’s efforts to secure strong congressional support in the fight against ISIS," she said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was more direct in his assessment on the Senate floor this week: "As commander in chief, the president has the authority he needs now to act against ISIS. I believe the vast majority of members of Congress agree with that. For now, it’s critical we support our commander in chief."  

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John McCain, R-Ariz.,  critiqued the various prongs of the president's plan in detail, but made no mention of whether the president should go to Congress for a vote.

North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, through a spokesperson touted that she had pressed the administration last year to arm moderate Syrian rebels, without explicitly endorsing or repudiating the president’s speech.

Still, there were notable naysayers, among them both frequent allies and critics of the president, each raising questions about the proper balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Sen. Mark Udall, a vulnerable Democrat facing re-election in Colorado, had tough words for Obama.

“I will not give this president — or any other president — a blank check to begin another land war in Iraq,” he said in a statement. "I believe any expanded U.S. military role beyond airstrikes in the fight against ISIL in Iraq must be approved by Congress.”

The Congressional Progressive Caucus echoed the sentiment, calling for Speaker Boehner to schedule a vote before members left for another recess.

Meanwhile, even as he more-or-less endorsed the president’s strategy against IS on Fox News, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Obama’s actions were "unconstitutional" without a vote in Congress, reaching rare consensus on a foreign policy issue with Republican rival Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex.

"You want a demonstration of presidential hubris, look no further than tonight," Cruz said. "My copy of the Constitution says Congress has the authority to declare war."