President Barack Obama promised during the State of the Union address Tuesday to help destroy the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria and asked for congressional authorization to do so. But as lawmakers applauded, the president made an unscripted addition to his remarks.

At first following closely to his prepared version of his speech, the president said, “I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.”

Then, amid tepid applause, he veered from his publicly released script and added, “We need that authority.”

The White House previously argued Obama doesn’t need specific congressional authorization to wage war against the jihadi militants who control Mosul, one of Iraq’s largest cities, and much of the Euphrates valley.



What the president meant is unclear. White House spokespeople would not offer on-the-record clarification.

Taken at face value, the president seemed to say the war effort requires new authorization of force legislation, as many war powers scholars and some politicians, such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have insisted for months.

But it’s possible the White House would argue that “need” referred to a mere desire or that “authority” meant moral authority, not actual authority.

Obama ordered airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq in August, and expanded the strikes to Syria in September after the group beheaded two U.S. journalists.



The White House has claimed the 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) legislation against organizations responsible for the 9/11 attacks permits airstrikes on the Islamic State group, which evolved from a post-9/11 al-Qaida affiliate into a bitter rival of that terror network.

In Iraq, the administration claims overlapping authority from 2002 legislation authorizing force to topple Saddam Hussein. Obama says he would like that law repealed, but Congress has resisted doing so.

Obama announced in November he would seek specific authorization against the Islamic State group, though the White House insisted it wasn’t legally necessary.

Many scholars say the use of the 2001 authorization does not authorize a prolonged war against the Islamic State group, and that strikes within Syria are particularly unsupported by law.



The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 – enacted in response to the secret presidential expansion of the Vietnam War – limits the president's ability to use force abroad to 60 days without congressional authorization.

“Military operations in Iraq and Syria have been ongoing ever since last August, requiring new statutory authority,” says Louis Fisher, a Constitution Project scholar who previously worked as the Library of Congress’ senior specialist in separation of powers.



Editorial Cartoons on the Islamic State View All 82 Images

“The 2001 AUMF cannot be read so broadly to authorize every anti-terrorist military action from 2001 forward, without end [and] the 2002 AUMF has no application to current conditions, he says.