According to an NBC poll, nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria. In fact, President Obama claimed to believe this himself when he was attempting to get elected. In 2007, Barack Obama was asked when Presidents have the authority to launch a military strike without congressional authorization. He had a precise answer ready:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat,” Obama told the Boston Globe.

The statement stands in stark opposition to Obama’s view now. The Obama Administration is on the cusp of intervening in a Syrian civil war that by all accounts does not pose an imminent domestic threat to the U.S. And Obama is set to unilaterally authorize punitive strikes against Bashar Assad’s regime. Obama administration officials made clear that the lack of support would not deter President Obama in deciding to strike without congressional approval. The White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, trying to head off growing pressure from Democrats and Republicans to provide more information about the administration’s military planning and seek Congressional approval for any action. “In 2007, Obama was adamant that the President did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no imminent threat to the U.S.,” PolitiFact wrote. “But now he has authorized just such an action.” The fact-checking site called the reversal a “full flop.”

Senator Rand Paul appeared on Hannity and expressed the same concern and outrage at the President planning to act without congressional approval in spite of the Constitution. It was stated that back in 2007 Vice President Joe Biden also had something to say about a president acting militarily without congressional approval. He said it deserved “impeachment” (see video below):

Follow Us For Updates: