5901 Shares

Why does the president have the authority to strike Syria (or anywhere for that matter) without congress?

Why does the president have the authority to strike Syria (or anywhere for that matter) without congress? Topic: Why does the president have the authority to strike Syria (or anywhere for that matter) without congress?
June 16, 2019 / By Barbary
Question: I thought that was the main point of checks and balances, I keep hearing that Obama could still order strikes even if congress doesn't approve of the action. How is that possible? Related, I am still confused as to why President G W Bush had that same power.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Why does the president have the authority to strike Syria (or anywhere for that matter) without congress?

Adela Adela | 6 days ago
The constitution says he is the commander in chief. Congress gave that office broad discretion and the authority to use force when he deems it critical in defense of the United States. All Presidents have the power. It's not limited to one President. Only Congress can declare war but the President can bomb or invade whoever he wants for up to 90 days. Congress could force him to recall our forces after that time frame.
👍 200 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? Why does the president have the authority to strike Syria (or anywhere for that matter) without congress? Share with your friends
Adela Originally Answered: Why do the words "Question Authority: Strike fear & Resentment in the hearts of Conservatives?
I consider myself mostly conservative. I am also not completely conformist, but on a personal level, conservative or not, I see "Question authority" as statement used by people who just want to cause chaos in life. I am introverted and a relatively nervous person, and I don't appreciate people changing ANYTHING, or arguing just for the sake of rebellion. I see anarchists as people who prefer chaos and and refuse to follow laws and refuse to do whatever they are told to, even if it is the RIGHT thing. On a political level, our government NEEDS to be questioned. But there are a lot of criminals who also follow the "question authority" rule....many mis-use it to their advantage.

Taskill Taskill
Bush got the approval from Congress before going to both Afghanistan and Iraq. He had a coalition for both unlike Obama who can't talk anyone into starting a regional war, thankfully.
👍 80 | 👎 -1

Perry Perry
The War Powers Act gives the Commander in Chief LIMITED authority to engage military action without Congressional approval ONLY IF we are at imminent risk of attack. Regarding Syria, we are NOT at imminent risk.
👍 75 | 👎 -8

Perry Originally Answered: Why don't Presidential nominees tell Congress: either revoke authority to invade those harboring terrorists?
I agree. Members of Congress who jump up now and say "I never supported the war" sound like first class, ironclad idiots. Even the golden boy Obama stated, in 2006, “My position has been that it would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down regardless of the politics, because I think that all of us have a stake in seeing Iraq succeed.” As soon as he announced his bid for presidency, he stated, “It’s time to start bringing our troops home.” I think it is extremely detrimental to the international perception of our country to have Congressmen yammering away, all eager to get their little sound bites televised. Their posturing and protestations are for themselves and votes and not for the good of their country. They begin to all sound and look the same. Here's a thought....if they want to keep their constituents informed, why don't they contact their party headquarters in all the counties and keep in touch on a personal level? Didn't anybody else's mama tell them not to air your dirty laundry in public? It means don't go talking bad about your family (country) in front of others; do that within the confines (Congressional sessions) of your own family. Congressional sessions are usually open; no secrets here. And you're right. Congress did indeed give Bush the "authority to use force". Granted, that is not the authority to declare war, but it is all the full joint session of Congress could, among all its members, work up the balls to do. Trying to change the rules now (passing a bill to set a timetable) is wrong. I don't blame Bush in the least for vetoing it. Besides just backpedaling on their original granting of authority, setting a deadline would broadcast our plans and strategy for all our enemies to see. What kind of idiot would it take to be engaged in a war and tell the enemy, "Hey, we have "x" number of troops here, now, but we're going to start removing them 1 or 2 battalions at a time over the next 12 months." Might as well tell them, "You can attack anytime you think we aren't able to defend against you anymore." I have been a life long Democrat. I strongly opposed George Bush 1 and 2. I knew George W. Bush in college. When he ran for the presidency....hell, when he became governor of Texas...all I could see was this loud, cocky smartass that didn't appear to have a brain cell working. But when the Twin Towers came down, all I could think was "Thank God Al Gore isn't president.". I admired Bush's strength and commitment then. I can't imagine how anyone could fail to. Yes, Congress needs to eliminate the sound bites and glory seeking, and get down to doing their jobs......quietly, and with a little dignity, please. And the presidential candidates need to spend a little less time talking to the cameras, and more voting issues, instead of voting Present or missing votes altogether.

If you have your own answer to the question Why does the president have the authority to strike Syria (or anywhere for that matter) without congress?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.