Action short of war

The professional lefties at KOS quote with approval a lefty law professor who quotes Obama in 2007 pontificating that, except in case of imminent or actual threat to the nation, the president has no authority to launch a military attack.

We are not even remotely faced with such a threat from Syria.

But that restriction is nowhere in the constitution.

The constitution reserves the decision whether or not to go to war to the congress, which is to make that decision through a formal declaration of war.

If such a declaration seems inappropriate for the limited action contemplated then that action is not a war and congress does not get to make the choice.

Harry Truman fought a war in Korea without any sort of express congressional OK, and that was unconstitutional.

What Obama did in Libya was in the gray area.

A limited action of the kind contemplated for Syria is by intention and design well short of war, and so this is not strictly congress's call.

The president has done everything possible to make sure everyone knows that he intends only a punitive strike - which is all GW should have done about 9/11 in Afghanistan, by the way.

He could do this on his own, though not consistent with his remark of 2007, referred to above.

But the risks are too great not to seek and abide a congressional decision.

Not only the risks of another outright war and spreading chaos in the region but of the political ruin of his second term.

There are real dangers of disaster and impeachment.

At this moment, many people across the political spectrum are insisting any military action at all, however limited, without congressional sanction would be unconstitutional and an impeachable offense.

Of course, no one is thinking of a declaration of war.

Not even those who want a war.

A resolution or even something much lower key than that is all most of these folks have in mind.

But their claim is untrue.

They are looking at the made up constitution, with its "resolutions authorizing the use of force," that the classe politique has agreed should govern such things since the end of the Vietnam War.

The constitution according to which congress has to OK not only outright war but any lesser action, given the exception noted by Obama, with a degree of gravity and formality proportionate to it - and in no case is an actual declaration really necessary.

Given all which, it would be much better for the region, for America, and for himself for Obama to climb down.

Yes, I agree it would be nice if we actually had such a constitution, provided our rulers would abide it.

But that wouldn't happen, anyway.

Update, Saturday, 08312013 1620 hrs EDT.

Obama will seek congressional approval.

Boehner's office issued an approving statement irrelevantly reminding everyone congress has the constitutional power to declare war.

I doubt anyone will remark on that irrelevancy since everyone is agreed to deny it, though congress will not in any case declare war and no one, apart perhaps from the president, would be more surprised than Boehner if it did.

Surprised and alarmed, since everyone is perfectly clear a war is certainly not what's wanted.

It is said O's administration continues to maintain, all the same, that he can constitutionally act without congressional leave, despite his theory of 2007 and the nonsense now in vogue.

Correctly, I think.

Much better not to, though, as I noted above.

Indeed, much better not to do this, at all.

And congress may refuse its permission.

I hope it does.

And I hope he then abandons the project, though he may feel instead compelled to go ahead for fear of lending weight to a constitutional theory he now denies.

Update 09012013 0833 hrs EDT.

A number of politicians, pundits, and editorial writers have now registered concern lest the president lend credence to that theory - his own theory of 2007.