The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-20-2009, 08:57 AM
sweeteviljesus sweeteviljesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
What is the difference between a declaration of war and an AUMF?

Is it just the wording that "a state of war exists with x" versus "the President is hereby authorized to use military force against x"?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-20-2009, 09:01 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,025
There are specific laws which are triggered by a declaration of war, but not an authorization for the use of military force. For example, under a AUMF, there is a limit on the number of reservists that may be called up and for how long. Under a declaration of war, there is no limit.

In terms of satisfying the Constitution, there is no difference, despite the protestations of some literalists. Congress passed a couple of AUMFs before the first declaration of war against Britain in the War of 1812, so the often-heard criticism that AUMFs are some kind of new development to substitute for a declaration of war are categorically false.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-20-2009, 09:34 AM
sweeteviljesus sweeteviljesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
What is it about an AUMF that doesn't trigger the same laws as a declaration of war. Is it purely textual within the resolution?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-20-2009, 09:52 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,025
No, it is how the other laws are written. For example, let's take something that has been in the news. 50 USC 1811 says: "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."

So, within 15 days of Congress passing a declaration of war, the President may authorize warrantless wiretapping. It doesn't say that the President may do that after Congress passes an AUMF.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-20-2009, 10:22 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 47,242
There are also differences in terms of eligibility for medals, combat pay, DVA support, G.I. Bill eligibility, etc. for military personnel engaged in fighting under a declaration of war as opposed to an AUMF. But Congress often retroactively recognizes conflicts in which war was never actually declared (such as Korea and Vietnam) as legally tantamount to war, with all the benefits to the warrior that ought to accrue, as since 1941 we've kinda gotten out of the habit of declaring war.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-20-2009, 11:14 AM
sweeteviljesus sweeteviljesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Yes but what makes an AUMF not a declaration of war? To me, an AUMF seems like simply a conditional declaration of war.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-20-2009, 11:32 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,025
Just the way that it is phrased. An AUMF will say something like, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to do such and such." A declaration of war uses terms like, "Congress recognizes that a state of war exists with respect to Fredonia."

There are conditional AUMFs. There's still a law on the books that if a Middle Eastern nation requests help in defending itself from a country controlled by "international Communism," Congress has already authorized the President to take action. That law was passed in 1957 and is still valid law today.

In most ways, the end effect of a declaration or AUMF is the same -- the President gets to bomb another country. But the additional powers that come with the power to invade are the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-20-2009, 11:36 AM
mlees mlees is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
On the receiving end (e.g. Iraq), there is not much difference.

The differences all lie within what changes (powers granted, etc.) domestically.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-20-2009, 11:54 AM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Beyond statutory law, there are a whole gamut of powers invested in the President by Article II as traditionally interpreted, collectively known as "the War Powers." Again an issue of interpretation and Presidential custom, but only some of these are triggered by an AUMF as opposed to a Congressional declaration of war.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-20-2009, 01:45 PM
sweeteviljesus sweeteviljesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Is there a standing authorization for emergency use of force, or is emergency action considered to be an implicit power of the President?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-20-2009, 03:35 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,025
Emergency action in self defense to an actual attack on the US is universally held to be an implied power of the President as Commander in Chief.

Emergency action beyond that has been subject to considerable debate. Currently, the War Powers Resolution allows the President to deploy troops into hostilities for a limited amount of time without congressional authorization. Beyond those time limits, troops are supposed to be removed unless Congress authorizes the use of force. The War Powers Resolution is controversial, as every president since it has passed has objected to its constitutionality.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.