Our view: Now, a test of Congress
A Congress accustomed to issuing steady denunciations of President Obama’s executive actions as unconstitutional — the separation of powers thing — finds itself in an unwanted place:
The president has asked lawmakers for an Authorization for Use of Military Force against the so-called Islamic State, whose acts of barbarism seem to be designed to foment an apocalyptic religious war.
Hawkish Republicans are not pleased with Obama’s request. Nor or many of his dovish fellow Democrats particularly enthralled — one notable exception being Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.
He has been arguing that U.S. military action that has been going on for more than six months against IS — or ISIS, or ISIL, either of which American politicians are wont to call it rather than imply the legitimacy of a state — is illegal because the Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress alone.
We agree with Kaine that U.S. air strikes in Iraq and Syria are acts of an undeclared war that need to be debated and voted on in Congress. And we commend his stated purpose: To clarify the mission for the troops and the American people to assure the public’s support.
For their part, Republican hawks complain bitterly that Congress already has granted the president all the authority he now seeks — and more — under previous AUMFs. He just has been too wimpy to use it effectively enough to destroy a brutal enemy.
The rub is that granting the new authorization request would add restrictions.
These are too vague to settle the qualms of Democrats who fear U.S. combat troops eventually will get pulled into an extended ground war with Islamist jihadists who are all too eager to engage. Republican critics object to restricting the nation’s commander in chief at all, and are particularly wary of a sunset clause requiring reauthorization in three years — under Obama’s successor.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s succinct response to the president’s request: “You have my permission to destroy ISIL. Call me if you need anything else.”
Well, after a vigorous debate before the American people, Congress would be free to vote on such a broad authorization, or anything in between.
That would put lawmakers’ fingerprints on U.S. involvement in a direct way, though. And a public now supportive of U.S. action could do an about-face in the future.
Congress should not duck its responsibility in this fight against a foe that represents a threat to the U.S. and its allies.
Kaine’s dogged insistence that his friend, the president, has been exceeding his constitutional authority as commander in chief has raised the national profile of Virginia’s junior senator. So high, in fact, it’s put him at the top of some pundits’ list for the 2016 Democratic vice presidential nomination.
So maybe his political instincts are at work. He made no secret of his interest in being on the party’s ticket in Obama’s first run.
That does not make his concerns inauthentic. Kaine was critical of congressional leaders of both parties who were glad to delay any action on the president’s war powers before the midterms. Whatever the motivating factors, he has been right all along.
In a speech in November, he said, “If we, after 13 years of war, have not learned enough to have this discussion seriously, then God help us.”
He is a man of compassion whose life has reflected the highest principles.
A savvy politician, as well? It’s just possible he is both.
###