The US does not recognize the ICC. No one* in the US cares about that institution.
*The rhetorical “no one”
I’ll respond to the OP to make my point clearer. I’m guessing the OP is actually just saying: Congress has sole authority* to allow the President to engage the US in war. Once Congress allows it, the President has sole authority to conduct war. I don’t think think the OP should get hung up on how Congress allows it. It can be by a formal declaration of war, it can be by congressional statute (authorization of war), it can be anything, as long as it’s first approved by Congress - all of which are derived under Congress’ constitutional ability to declare war power. Just because we don’t formally declare wars anymore, doesn’t mean Congress is or is not allowing the President to conduct war. My point is only one way to constitutionally allow war by Congress was effectively put to rest under the UN paradigm of war.
*There are Constitutional exceptions in which the President does not need Congressional authority before engaging the US in war. Self-defense is one. That’s easy. There are others, most all of which are disputed. This is where everything comes into play. The exceptions swallowed the rule of Congressional authority as a prerequisite. The concept of gloss would apply here. The President unilaterally engages himself in a non-defensive war and the Supreme Court never says what the President did was unconstitutional. Rinse and repeat. The WPR tried, but is failing to erase the exceptions.
Re: Senator McCain, it doesn’t matter. McCain probably accepts many of the exceptions to Congress’ sole authority to engage the US in war. So does Obama as demonstrated with Libya. So does every other President.
Basically, (1) the President is too powerful and can do what he/she pleases. The Supreme Court could stop it, but they haven’t; (2) it has almost nothing to do with a formal “declaration of war” by Congress.
Thanks for all the good points.
I think the reason that I don’t like the non-declarative war is that it gives too much political cover and allows these ill advised adventures, in addition to keeping the overall population from feeling like they’re part of the war. The latter is important (IMO) because a war ought to be fought for big, important reasons and the sacrifices should be shared by all (on some level), not just poor southerners.
I believe that if Congress had to pony up and say, literally, we declare war on Iraq, and the president has to sign it, we probably never would have invaded Vietnam or Iraq (2003). It just would not have been important enough. But I think if you look back at the times when it was important enough we would stand proudly and declare war with all the righteous indignation we could muster. Afghanistan probably falls into that category.
It would also be a lot harder for the politicians to make hay over a president’s escapades, such as McCain is doing now (I am tempted to start a thread on what seems to be his boner for war, but I don’t know what the debate would be).
I recently closed a zombie thread addressing the same issue. Among the reviving posts, however, were a couple that provided more information on the topic.
You may find those posts in Why Doesn’t Congress declare War?
[ /Moderating ]
Whoa! I followed everything in your post, and agreed with it. But nothing you said led up to this value judgement!
You explained, correctly, how a bill authorizing the use of force satisfies the constitution, and that Congress still retains the power to allow the President to wage war.
Where do you find the basis for your conclusion, that the President is “too powerful” in all of this?
Does any country, anywhere in the world, “declare war” (using those words) these days? The phrase went out with frock coats and spats.
Let’s get real here: if Congress had been asked for a declaration of war on Iraq in 2003, the vote total most likely would have been exactly the same. I think that’s also true of the post-9/11 vote to go to war against Al Qaida.
What politician do you see as so hair-splitting on those issues that would go in front of his constituents and say: “I was willing to vote to invade Iraq on specious claims of WMD, but I just couldn’t bring myself to vote to go to war against Iraq. Let me clarify: I fully support voting to invade Iraq, I support the actual invasion of Iraq; but if you asked me to declare war on Iraq, I would vote no! Does anyone have any questions?”
That politician would be a laughingstock.
There is some language in the constitution that addresses the question of a bill, measure, or resolution, by any other name.
If the House and Senate vote upon it (with the sole exception of adjournment) then the President has a shot at vetoing it. Congress can’t slip one past him by calling it a “statement” or a “declaration.”
Likewise, a measure “authorizing the use of force” is exactly the same as a “declaration of war.” It is a Congressional Bill, and, once signed (or a veto overturned) it has exactly the same force of law.
Congress could (absurdly!) declare war on Syldavia, with the express restriction that no violence shall be permitted to be used against them; Congress could, also (absurdly!) declare a condition of peace with Borduria, with a call for the President to drop bombs upon them.
The real meaning is in what the law actually says as written.
First, led me add Congress retains the right to always not pay for anything the President does and they can impeach the President for an illegal war. Both valid uses of their powers. Lastly, we can amend the Constitution with the War Powers Resolution language and all the “exceptions” disappear (the WPR is a statute and the President claims constitutional powers, which an Amendment would cure.)
That’s also the basis for my conclusion. Congress is good at doing nothing, not something. The Supreme Court won’t touch these war disputes.
However, it’s very easy for the President to do war stuff. And the more the President does, the more he’s entitled to do (ie gloss - “a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned”).
The WPR is ingenious in that it basically says we know Congress is inept, so we are writing a law that says all future Congresses object to the President’s war without having to do anything (ie, the WPR 60-90 day clock).
This has been utterly meaningless & obsolete since the development of nuclear-tipped ICBMs.
No it hasn’t. But thanks for playing. Your parting gifts are available at the exit.
I agree with you on the second one. The September 14, 2001 authorization reads so similarly to a declaration of war, and the national mood was so much in favor of war, that it wouldn’t make much difference.
But the other authorizations are worded as threats to take action, not as promises to fight. They are analogous to strike authorization votes, not the strike itself. I think this makes them hard to vote against because you would seem to be giving up a chance to avoid war should the threat work.
A declaration of war essentially means that the time for the enemy to grovel has passed, and we are now going to fight regardless. This goes against the modern idea that war is to be avoided if you can achieve your aims otherwise.
That’s actually a pretty fair point. The vote in 2003 would have turned out the same way, just not as bipartisan.
I understand, and to a certain extent, agree with the sentiment of the OP, but I’m not sure that there’s any real meaningful distinction here worth mentioning. There needs to be a balance between the president’s ability to act quickly, and the people, through congress, to authorize a war. But I think to a large extent the whole idea of one nation declaring war against another nation is essentially an obsolete idea. Gone are the days where armies or navies would meet up and fight in big battles. Wars these days are much more fought in smaller skirmishes, guerilla tactics, and large scale battles are pretty much over.
That is, the idea of declaring war strikes me as the same sort of old-fashioned idea of “civilized warfare”. If we’re sending a bunch of people with guns over to kill you and your people, what purpose does a formal declaration of war serve other than to fit this weird glorious idea of war.
Another problem is that while some of these wars have been against states, a lot of these wars have significant non-state opponents involved. Like Iraq, sure, we fought against the formally recognized government, but most of the fighting was ultimately against insurgency. If we were to go to war with ISIS, they’re not a state at all? How do we meaningfully declare war against them. Even if some major component were to surrender or just give up, it’s not the same as the state itself surrendering and bringing an end to the conflict.
And, quite frankly, short of a state government doing something really stupid like launching a nuclear attack against us, I just don’t see any real purpose in the gesture given how these conflicts arise and play out.
I think the War Powers Act did a good job of reigning in presidential power to start wars all willy-nilly.
The problem, of course, is that when you send in troops it’s virtually impossible to pull them out within 30 days (or whatever the statutory limit is). So for all intents and purposes, the president does simply start wars on his or her own, because Congress will hesitate to pull out troops too soon and appear weak.
Makes me think of Theodore Roosevelt sending “The Great White Fleet” on its voyage, despite the opposition of some in Congress.
OHH!
I’m sorry.
I wasn’t aware that you were endowed with the capacity to dismiss a form of warfare that would utterly destroy Human Civilization, & perhaps render Man extinct.
What is, arguably, the most important issue of the last 69 years.
The proverbial 800 pound Gorilla in the phone booth.
Please, do tell us why.
You made the silly claim that the distinction between war-making and c-in-c power has been meaningless and obsolete since the development of ICBMs. Obviously, that’s nonsensical, since the US engages in military actions using a wide variety of weapons and deployment strategies other than nukes. One of the things we were discussing before you decided to bull your way around the china shop was the legal issues surrounding that.
Don’t waltz into a thread and snark at me about the legal issues if you don’t know anything about them. [rolleyes]
I think Bosda raises a valid point. It used to be wars would take months to get going. Even as recently as World War II, we had a period of months after Pearl Harbor during which we could bring the country up to its full fighting ability (and the oceans meant that we could count on those months).
War is no longer like that. A war could now start and be effectively finished within an hour. And that changes the political situation. Congress has recognized that it must give the President prior authorization for some forms of military acts that the President can invoke at will.
So? What does this have to do with what I said or what he responded with?
So? Who said otherwise?
Wait, you mean Congress used its WAR MAKING POWER to give prior authorization to the President to conduct his COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF power? You mean that these are actually two separate constitutionally defined powers which have a murky grey area between them?
Because that is what I originally said. Bosda responded with snark or a joke or nonsense. Not sure what it was supposed to be, but no, he doesn’t have a point that responds in any way to what I said.