Judge Andrew Napolitano

War, War, What is it Good For?

By Judge Andrew Napolitano - Thursday, September 5, 2013

President Obama’s request for express congressional authorization for a limited aerial invasion of Syria raises profound legal and constitutional questions. For starters, there is simply no legal basis in international law to support an American invasion of Syria. Yet, notwithstanding that, federal law permits the president to commit U.S. military forces anywhere he wants for up to 90 days, without express authorization from Congress. So, why did Obama ask for the authorization he surely knows he already has?

Since March 2011, Syria has been in the throes of a civil war. Those seeking to oust the government of President Bashar al-Assad are a mixture of his domestic political opponents, disgruntled former Syrian military officers and dangerous radical foreign Islamist fighters affiliated with al-Qaida. International organizations monitoring the war have put the dead from both sides at more than 100,000 persons.

Until last week, the U.S. had steadfastly stayed out of this war, as its outcome is unlikely to affect American national security. Though Assad is a former friend who once famously dined with then Sen. John Kerry, he is now a monster willing to go to extremes to stay in power. On the other hand, our allies in the region surely would prefer that the Syrian government not be run by or under the influence of al-Qaida, and federal law prohibits Americans and the U.S. government from aiding al-Qaida. Hence, our neutrality — until Obama made a thoughtless and bravado-driven comment during his re-election campaign in August 2012, and now fears that his bluff has been called.

In his comment, the president, sounding like an international policeman — a position he condemned when President George W. Bush sounded that way — declared that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its adversaries, the very use of which is prohibited by all civilized norms, America would revisit its neutrality. In reliance upon what he now claims is sound intelligence showing government use of chemical weapons on innocent Syrian civilians, Obama last week stated an intention to engage in a limited military invasion of Syria so as to weaken its resolve and ability to fight the rebels further.

Never mind that the photos shown by Obama’s folks of aid workers ministering to the supposed victims of government gassing show the workers without gas masks or gloves, and never mind that the Assad regime has permitted U.N. weapons inspectors unfettered access to its materiel, and never mind that the president wants to invade Syria before the weapons inspectors issue their report. The president wants us to believe that the Assad regime intentionally gassed a thousand Syrian innocents who were of no military value to the rebels or threat to the regime — and among whom were, according to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., “hundreds of children.”

Even if all this took place as Obama claims, can he lawfully bomb Syria to punish its government for violating international norms or to deter it from doing so again? In a word: No.

International law recognizes only three lawful routes to the use of military force. It recognizes the right of every country to launch military force in order to prevent its own borders from being invaded or to subdue those who commenced an invasion. It also recognizes the ability of any U.N. member state to come to the aid of any other U.N. member state when one of them has been invaded. And treaties to which the U.S. and Syria are parties permit limited purpose invasions when approved by the U.N. None of these lawful scenarios applies to Syria.

Can Obama just launch an invasion of Syria even if it would be unlawful and even if Congress says no?

Because of the vicissitudes of history, the personalities of presidents and the myopic compromises of past Congresses, the area of presidential war-making has different legal and constitutional ramifications. Under the Constitution, only Congress can authorize the offensive use of military force. James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 make it obvious that the Framers were nearly unanimous in their resolve to keep the war-making power away from the president and repose it exclusively with Congress. They did this clearly and unambiguously in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Notwithstanding the precise language of the Constitution and the history of the nation’s birth, the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a federal statute enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, does permit the president on his own to use the military for offensive wars for a maximum of 90 days. Thus, under current federal law, Obama may lawfully bomb Syria even if Congress declines to authorize him to do so and even though such an act would violate international law.

But the WPR is profoundly unconstitutional because it cedes Congress’ constitutional war-making power to the president. The WPR was an ill-conceived political compromise effectuated by a Watergate-weakened president, congressional hawks who approved of Nixon’s unilateral invasion of Cambodia and sober congressional heads more faithful to the separation of powers.

Yet, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the transfer of constitutional powers among the branches of the federal government is unconstitutional, even if popular and consensual, unless brought about by an amendment to the Constitution. Thus, Congress can no more let the president start wars than the president can let Congress appoint federal judges, lest the Constitution have no meaning or force of law.

So why does Obama want Congress’ approval to do that which international law prohibits and federal law permits? Obama knows that war is the health of the state: It unites political adversaries around common patriotic-sounding goals and often generates support for those in harm’s way and resources for the government officials who sent them there.

But, will another war enhance our freedoms or our safety? Will it add to our debt? Will it trash the law? Can we bomb and kill for bragging rights?

The answers are obvious, and they don’t justify war.

COPYRIGHT 2019 JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO/CREATORS.COM


Be the first to read Judge Andrew Napolitano's columns and other Voice of Sanity articles by signing up today and having them delivered directly into your inbox each morning.

Additional articles by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Respond to Writer

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (maximum of 1500 characters). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.

4 Responses to “War, War, What is it Good For?”

  1. MichaelRenata says:

    Judge I love ya and I come from New Jersey as well… it's in the water.

    No one cares about the constitution except a few old guys still bitching about Viet Nam, "Ho Che Ming Trail Baby", even Clinton ducked out of the fight too bad.

    I live in the Great State of Michigan the economic come back town of Detroit. Why don't you write about SOLUTIONS and stop pointing out constitutional facts no one but you understands. They can only kill you once Judge and God knows (along with everyone else) that you are already a target. Did you guess it…..I got a solution YAHHHHH!!! but like you no body listens to me either.

  2. MichaelRenata says:

    I sent the following to the C4L, 10/70 Plan Could Avoid Bankrupting Large Cities
    By Michael Busler
    Monday, August 26, 2013

    Regarding the retirement age, 65 is simply not appropriate now. In 1935 when the Social Security program was introduced, people would retire at 65 and they lived, on average, to be 67. Thus the program worked. Today people are easily living to 75 or 85 or 95 or more. If an individual begins working at 22 and retires at 65, she will have worked for 43 years. If she lives to be 95, she will collect a pension for 30 years. This means that she worked for 43 years and got paid for 73. There is no way that this can continue. And if it is not changed the problem will likely worsen in the future as people start living even longer lives.

  3. MichaelRenata says:

    A SOLUTION!!!!
    If a black/white woman started working at 22 and retired at 65, making an average of $30,000.00 per year she would have made $1,290,000.00 over her lifetime. Now, if she lives to be 95 and receives $30,000.00 per year for 30 years, she will receive $900,000.00 in total and her family would receive at her demise an income tax free death benefit, under current tax law, of approximately $300,000.00 worthless dollars. Worth about as much as your careless comments.

    Please let us not forget the paid off mindless government/corporately sponsored stooges, like the judicial, legislative and moronic chief executive actors and their news anchor/actors co-Hort's, that supported the over collection of FICA taxes from 1982 thru 2002 of $1.7 trillion dollars. If invested at 5% then America's promise of Freedom without the likes of group's like the federal reserve (which is neither federal nor a reserve) and corrupt government employee's (sponges) stealing the wealth of our nation,could most certainly have continued

  4. asdfasdf says:

    This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I enjoy seeing websites that understand fake business in canada the value of providing a prime resource for free.

Leave a Reply

To Receive Free Daily
Articles Via E-mail
Click Here

Featured Columnists

The Problem:
A Government-Created Depression
The Solution: Set the Entrepreneur Free to Create Wealth!

Click here to learn about Robert Ringer's landmark new book, The Entrepreneur:
The Way Back for the U.S. Economy
, that is shocking the establishment.

Liberty Education
Interview Series

Robert Ringer interviews top political, economic, and social leaders on today's most vital and controversial issues.

Dr. Benjamin Carson Interview

Featured Interview:
Dr. Benjamin Carson

Audio file loading...

More Interviews



Archives