Does the President really need Congress to declare war?

There was no formal declaration of war in the Korean War or the Vietnam War. Nor was there a formal declaration of war on Iraq in 1991. Yet in all cases the military was mobilized and used in an extensive campaign against a foreign power.

The Constitution states that only Congress has the power to declare war, which was likely an intentional decision by the framers of the Constitution to keep the President from having too much power or unilateral decision making with regards to the military.

Although Congress recently authorized “use of force” for any response to the attacks, they have yet to formally declare war on another nation. Suppose that the U.S. government finds solid evidence that the government of Afghanistan and/or Iraq was an active participant in the planning and execution of the atrocities of 9.11.2001, would it really be necessary to ask Congress for a declaration of war on those two nations for us to act? Especially since past history has indicated that presidents have acted against foreign governments using the military without Congressional declarations of war.

Hell, President Lincoln’s mobilization of the U.S. army to quash the rebellion in the South was declared Unconstitutional by a Federal judge, on the grounds that only Congress was supposed to have the power to call the army into actual service. Lincoln ignored the court order and tried to have the judge thrown in jail.

Only Congress can make a declaration of war.

Without congressional approval the President can only mobilize troops for up to 90 days, due to the War Powers Act which was passed after Vietnam.

It doesn’t take a declaration of war for Congress to extend the 90 day deadline, but a declaration of war would pretty much give the President total control over the situation.

I thought the War Powers Act was in limbo, because portions of the Act contained Legislative Veto power, and the Supreme Court decided that Legislative Vetoes were Unconstitutional.

Maybe the act was severable…

I’m interested in this point - do you have a cite?

The actual answer to the question in the OP: Yes. A GQ-ready question if ever there was one.

Perhaps the real question, about which there can be some debate, would be “Does the President really need Congress to wage war?”

Feel free to discuss the current status of the War Powers Act, and don’t forget to take into account the fact that the Constitution endows Congress with the ability to authorize appropriations for expenditures that make any military action feasible.

No, he just gets some zealot marine to run the war out of his office.

The folks in the military are obliged to obey the president. Realistically, they do so until they run out of money which is controlled by congress.

The president can, thus, creat a situation where war is declared by someone else on us and the congress would look a little dull sitting back, doing nothing.

Has congress declared a state of war here?

Only insofar as the orders he issues are lawful. The United States Armed Forces are not a totalitarian dictatorship.

True.

Dumbest damn thing I’ve read in ages. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh, you were serious? Sheesh.

As of this posting, no. Therefore, regardless of how many time E.D. of Fox & Friends says it, the country’s not at war.

To officially declare war, yes, the President absolutely needs Congress (or, more helpfully, Congress does not even need the President). Does the President, in practice, need Congress to commence and sustain hostilities, even for long stretches of time? No, not really.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (passed ove Nixon’s veto), in a nutshell:

  1. The Pres. must consult Congress “in every possible instance” before deploying abroad.

  2. Pres. must report to Congress w/in 48 hours and periodically regarding the circumstances and estimated duration of deployment.

  3. Pres. must terminate deployment w/in sixty days of intial report, w/ a possible 30 day extension to protect safety of personel.

  4. Congress may direct withdrawal at any time by concurrent resolution, which the President cannot veto.
    Since its passing, the WPA has been highly ineffectual. This is mostly due to the fact that, as has been mentioned, “4” above is almost certainly unconstitutional (see the Supreme Court’s invalidation of legislative veto, INS v. Chadha). So as not to cause too much trouble, Presidents have since 1973 tended to keep Congress either more (Persian Gulf) or less (Lebanon, e.g.) in the loop. Bush Sr. went so far as to request a vote from Congress authorizing military action (over the objection of some in his cabinet: despite Congress’ whining it wasn’t necessary, and what happens if the majority doesn’t approve?). Nevertheless, when push comes to shove, the Executive Branch can always threaten to drag the courts into examining the WPA, at which point Congress must necessarily back down.

Monty:

Not so fast there, bucko. In principal, there’s nothing wrong with what Yuck wrote. While it may be slightly overstated, it is entirely conceivable that the President could checkmate (politically) Congress into supporting a given war once it’s in progress. Once American forces are on the ground and fighting, less hawkish attitudes become decidedly unpopular among the (voting) population in general. Whether or not you think it’s “dumb,” this is a demonstrable fact.

Besides that, don’t be rude.

I’d also add that #3 may very well be unconstitutional – the Constitution vests the President with power to control the military as Commander-in-Chief. I’d argue that it’s outside Congress’ power to limit the Commander-in-Chief directly; if they’re unhappy with his military action they can either cut off the money or impeach him. IMO, the President can act militarily not only without Congressional approval but even in contravention of the Congressional will. But that’s a question that’s never been answered. And given the political realities alluded to above, it’s pretty unlikely that it ever will.

–Cliffy