Today on Fareed Zakaria, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin argued that the president doesn’t need the congressional authorization for military action against Syria as long as he gets it from the UN or NATO. He describes and even advocates that the UN and NATO are “legitimate substitutes” for the constitutional congressional authorization of military force.
Watch:
FAREED: Jeff you made a distinction I want to understand a little bit better. You were strong about, well, either congressional authority or something from the UN. But the Constitution doesn’t say anything about UN authorization. Presumably, the crucial thing from a constitutional point of view is whether or not you need congressional authorization for the president to act. Why would the UN or NATO be sufficient?
TOOBIN: Fareed, I don’t want to pretend that I think, if you look at the history of the last 30 years, there is a perfectly logically consistent line here. I am advocating a position that I think largely should be followed, has mostly been followed, but I don’t want to pretend that this is some wild aberration if Obama were to have done it on his own.
I think this has really been a practical change to how both Americans and even members of Congress feel about the use of military force. That the sanction of our treaty obligations, whether it’s our obligations in the United Nations or in NATO in the case of Bosnia, those are authorizations in and of themselves for military action. The fact that we are part of the Security Council. When the Security Council authorizes military action, that’s authorization for us. Same with NATO.
You’re right, that is not formally part of the Constitution. But I think as the common law of international law has developed over the past 30 years, I think they are legitimate substitutes for congressional authorization.
But remember here, Obama has nothing so far. And that’s why I think it’s so important that he get some sort of authorization.