Syria Debate Allying Left, Right on Executive Limits

WASHINGTON—The Syria debate in Congress is providing a new opportunity for a recent alliance of conservative and liberal lawmakers to cement their common interest in placing limits on executive authority.
Already, House members from the political right and left have come together in an attempt to rein in the National Security Agency’s surveillance of telephone-call data. They share other principles, such as a wariness, or in some cases opposition, to the use of drone strikes overseas, particularly to target U.S. citizens.
Many of these lawmakers have been skeptical of President Barack Obama’s plan for a military strike against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons. Now, the decision by Mr. Obama to seek congressional authorization for such a strike could embolden them not only to oppose him on Syria but to revisit how the executive branch approaches other national-security policies.
Rep. Tom Cole (R., Okla.), a close ally to House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), said on Sunday that he expected to see more clashes between the executive and legislative branches on the administration’s national security authority.
“There is a whole lot of tension between security, on one hand, and liberty on the other, and I think there will be more showdowns between Congress and the administration—with the Congress more often backing liberty,” Mr. Cole said, in an interview. He said he was undecided about his vote on authorizing force for a strike against Syria, but was leaning against it.
Last week, 186 House lawmakers signed letters to the president urging him to seek congressional authorization before launching any strike on Syria. In an abrupt change of course, Mr. Obama announced on Saturday that he, in fact, would heed this request.
The Syria debate isn’t the first in which an unusual coalition of Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who generally don’t see eye-to-eye on policy matters, have come together to oppose aspects of the administration’s national-security agenda.
After leaks from Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, showed the breadth of U.S. surveillance efforts, the House came close in July to stripping funding from an NSA program that captures data about Americans’ use of phones and email. The measure came within seven votes of passage, due to backing from a large number of both Republicans and Democrats.
Since then, there have been further leaks about the NSA surveillance schemes, including the revelation that the agency inadvertently scans Americans’ emails. Mr. Cole said that if the funding vote were to happen again, he thought it would be successful.
Earlier this year, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) led a lengthy debate on the Senate floor about the administration’s use of unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists abroad. Democrats, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), joined Mr. Paul in expressing unease about the secret program.
Lawmakers on both the left and right, including many in the libertarian mold, have generally been wary of U.S. military engagement. In 2011, bipartisan opposition surfaced in the House to the administration’s participation in the military mission in Libya. A measure that would have cut off funding for that exercise also was narrowly defeated.
Some congressional observers don’t think the president’s decision to seek a vote on his Syria policy will have a significant impact on other areas of national-security policy.
“Frankly, I don’t see it having too much spillover effect,” said Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas. “I think the climb-down on going it solo on Syria was a product of Syria-specific factors, including the polls showing substantial public doubts, combined with the very real possibility that this could in fact turn out badly.”
Write to Corey Boles at corey.boles@dowjones.com

More: Syria Debate Allying Left, Right on Executive Limits