Escalation of the Syrian Conflict (Aug–Sep. 2013): Why does Obama think he has the authority to carry out military action against Syria?
Obama's will to attack Syria is wrong from the point of view of international law. Here's why: How High are High Officials: Analyzing Obama’s Speech on Syria
Escalation of the Syrian Conflict (Aug–Sep. 2013): How do Obama and Putin's views differ on Syria?
1) BARACK OBAMABarack Obama believes that the "red line" has been crossed - That is, Assad's regime has started to use chemical weapons against the rebels. Besides providing $800 million in aid, half of which will go to Syria and the other half to neighboring countries harboring refugees, the White House announced last week that they will be sending direct military aid to Syrian opposition.Obama, however, is still holding back, as he plans to send the Syrian rebels small arms, rather than the heavy weapons that the rebels need. His concerns are primarily that the weapons could fall into the wrong hands, such as Islamist extremists, that could potentially turn them against the US or other countries, wreaking havoc. Basically, he and the U.S. Government support the rebels.________________________________________________________________2) VLADIMIR PUTINPutin continues to arm Dr. Assad, his long-standing ally. For his stance on the Syrian conflict, he has received much flak from Western countries such as the US, France, and Britain, and Russia is becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the G-8 and the international community on this issue. French President Hollande's question - "‘‘How can we allow Russia to continue delivering weapons to the Assad regime when the opposition receives very few and is today massacred?Putin dismissed such criticism, saying that both sides in the civil war have "blood on their hands", and that his supplying of arms to the Syrian government was not a breach of international law.Basically, he and the Russian government support the Assad regime.________________________________________________________________Putin and Obama haven't wasted time assuring the public that their "opinions do not coincide", but also share a mutual desire to end the violence in Syria.
Will President Obama ask for congressional authorization as he escalates military action against ISIS (September 2014)?
According to early reads of his speech's transcript, no. In my estimation, he already has the legal authority he needs to act against ISIS.Copying from my answer to At what point does President Barack Obama's expanded U.S. airstrike operations in Iraq and Syria aimed at ISIS become a "war" that needs Congressional approval?Chances are that President Obama would make the case that the strikes against ISIS falls under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Public Law 107-40). The law, passed in the wake of 9/11, authorizes the president:to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.As ISIS contains elements of (if not serves as the successor to) al-Qaeda in Iraq, which had at one point pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and so sorta harboured "such organizations or persons" associated with 9/11, he could make a (weak) link back to the law and say he is attempting to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such . . . organizations or persons."Whether that would hold up to Congress or in Court, I don't think it would; but at the same time, it's incumbent on Congress to assert itself in this matter. If they choose not to, then I really don't have a lot of sympathy for the case that the president is widely exceeding his authority to mitigate a humanitarian crisis.
Does President Obama have an authority to declare war against ISIS without congressional approval?
Sort of... it's a little complicated. Start with the wikipedia article on the War Powers Resolution.The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.An Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is not formally in place yet, but Congressional leadership from both parties have made public statements of support.Levin predicts vote to authorize ISIS fight in lame-duck sessionIn the lead-up to the November 2014 U.S. Midterm Elections, no sitting candidate wants to record a war authorization vote that might be used against them by challengers. Many Congresspeople talk tough, but are unwilling to vote tough.
Does President Obama have the authority under the War Powers Act to bomb Syria without congressional approval?
Yes, the President as Commander in Chief can order the armed forces into action without Congressional approval. President Obama has asked the Congress to endorse his decision to launch air and missile strikes in Syria, because he believes our country will appear stronger if we are united in supporting this action, but he isn't required to get approval. An actual declaration of war can only come by vote of the Congress, but this is a formality no one bothers with anymore.
How likely is the US Congress to authorize the use of American military forces against the ISIS as requested by President Obama?
100%There will be speechifying and what not, but no Congressman wants to run in 2016 as being soft on ISIS. Also, it is important to note that while congressional action makes the funding eaiser, the President can kinda do what he wants on this one. And the constitutionality of the War Powers Act haven't been tested, but I bet the president will do what he wants.