Does Obama need permission to attack Syria?
By Marshall Cohen
(CBS News) -- After last week's apparent chemical attack, and with international pressure mounting, it looks inevitable that the United States and its allies will soon launch a military strike against Syria.
Much of the discussion has centered on which sites will be targeted and when President Barack Obama will give the go-ahead. But there's another undetermined factor bubbling under the surface: Does Obama need authorization from Congress before he orders U.S. military action?
At least 108 members of Congress say yes.
Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., wrote a letter to Obama earlier this week, urging him to seek Congressional approval before the U.S. gets involved in Syria. So far, 92 Republicans and 16 Democrats have signed the document, representing a quarter of the House of Representatives. Rigell plans to deliver the letter to the White House on Wednesday.
Among the signatories is Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. During an appearance Sunday on "Face The Nation," McCaul warned Obama against diving too deep into the conflict, saying the United States should not pick sides but instead needs to "do everything we can to secure and destroy these chemical weapons."
Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who also signed the letter, lashed out Tuesday on Twitter, claiming it would be "unquestionably unconstitutional (and) illegal" for Obama to bypass Congress.
Rigell's letter and Amash's tweet cited the War Powers Resolution, which was passed in 1973 during the Vietnam War. The law requires the president to receive Congressional approval before sending U.S. troops into action abroad. Only Congress can formally declare war, according to the Constitution, but the U.S. has been involved in many unofficial military actions.
Still, many legal scholars think the law is unconstitutional, and some key Republicans said this week that Obama can order a military strike against Syria without Congressional approval.
Presidents from both parties have violated the War Powers Resolution without facing serious consequences.
President Bill Clinton ordered U.S. involvement in a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 without first getting approval from Congress. Clinton later requested, and received, special funding from Congress before the War Powers Resolution's 60-day deadline for Congressional approval ran out.
And in 2011, Obama ordered airstrikes against Libya during that country's civil war. The United States joined an international coalition, led by NATO and supported by a U.N. Security Council resolution, to enforce a no-fly zone and bombard Libyan military targets.
Things are different this time around. Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, is all but certain to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution that supports intervention. Without U.N. support, Obama will have to walk a tightrope to justify the looming strike on Syria.
Obama administration officials have hinted that U.S. intervention is meant to protect civilians in a humanitarian crisis and punish Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that there will be consequences for countries that violate this norm.