Debate Within a Party: Was Attacking ISIS Justified?

Link: Some Democrats At Odds Over Obama's Claim to Airstrike Authority

Brief Summary of Main Points:

• Obama neglected asking Congress for permission to launch airstrikes against the terrorist group, ISIS, in late September. There is controversy as to whether that was legal or not.
• Fellow Democrats in Congress are upset by President Obama’s actions, and legal experts and other legislators are doubtful about the validity of what Obama did.
• Some of Obama’s defenses included the airstrike authorizations approved due to the 9/11 attack and to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
• Obama’s opponents, some fellow Democrats, countered his defenses by stating that those authorizations were for those situations only, to attack Al Qaeda and topple Saddam Hussein, respectively.
• The airstrikes may also be violating international law; technically, they’d only be allowed if the attacking government was in imminent danger as a form of self defense. This is not the case.

Connection to Questions:

• Despite the general negativity, President Obama has a great deal of congressional support for his actions; however, the constitutionality of his actions is what is being questioned, and that is decided by the Supreme Court.
• This may turn into a large internal conflict between the branches of government. If the Supreme Court (Judicial) declares Obama’s actions (Executive) unconstitutional, Congress (Legislative) might rebel and check the Supreme Court in the future by removing some of its judges or passing laws strengthening executive power. While that is unlikely, it is a possibility.
• At the current moment, the Executive Branch seems to have the most power, and is gladly using that power to its fullest extent; however, the Judicial Branch could easily topple the Executive Branch by declaring its actions unconstitutional, in which case Judicial will have a ton of power.

Opinion:

Despite the disapproval within the Democratic Party of President Obama’s executive action, the Supreme Court seems to not be taking any action. I partially agree and partially disagree with Obama’s actions; while ISIS is certainly a threat to many countries across the globe (including the United States), it is not an immediate threat, and Obama should have brought the idea to Congress before acting on his own. Also, the Democrat’s disapproval of the President they nominated—perhaps it has something to do with the midterm effect?

Questions:

1. Do you think President Obama's recent attacks on ISIS were justified, legally and morally?
2. Why are Obama's fellow Democrats showing so much disdain to him? Is it because of the midterm effect?
3. The United States is inevitably being drawn into the ISIS conflict by the rest of the world, so how do you think that the U.S. should act towards the young yet radical terrorist group?

Background Information:

Executive Branch

ISIS/ISIL