Ravenman Usually I hate this argument because it is abused and often used when not approporiate.
Here goes, modern war is very different from war at the time the Constitution was drafted. During the Cold War, for example, the POTUS could take the US into a defensive nuclear war in a few minutes. This was crazy, sure, but it was also the backbone of deterrence. The US has always used military force at a minimum through the assent of Congress, usually with written congressional approval. That is quite simply good enough, until Congress (and Congress only) decides to challenge a president in a time of ‘war.’ Or not of course, because that would be the issue.
I should have made the OP more clear, I think- I believe, in the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, that “defense of the realm is the first duty of government”, and that if a ground invasion (or aerial bombardment) of US territory were in the offing, the Prez ought to be able to do something about it beyond making a speech.
I was really referring to actions which clearly have the potential to become long term total wars- the invasion of Iraq, for example. These actions are what I was saying Congress ought to be initiating. I wasn’t suggesting that declared wars are in any way more justifiable in an international sense, but in relation to United States law.
I see no reason why the CoC can’t open debate over whether a particular war is necessary, or ask Congress for a declaration, but from my reading of the Constitution I believe the whole point of having Congress declare war was to keep a President with an itchy trigger finger in check. Thus, an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state, with the intention of taking and holding territory for any length of time (yes, even for long enough to inspect it for nukes) should only be under the direction, not tacit approval, of Congress.
In other words, my real beef is with the Congress for letting Bush slip his leash, not with Bush for doing the slipping.
Well, the nuclear issue is neither here nor there - as far as I can tell, nobody has taken issue with the President having the ability to maintain a defensive nuclear posture, or for that matter, a defensive military posture, without the authorization of Congress. I think that goes without saying – see my comment a few posts up about common-sense case for the power (and duty) of the President to defend against sneak attacks.
But in a larger sense, what “modern war” has to do with the reason why the President should not seek authorization for actions such as those in Panama, Haiti, or Kosovo is just beyond me.
I’m not sure if I’m following your point about “the assent of Congress.” Are you saying that Congress has always authorized the use of military force? That’s clearly not true - e.g., the House failed to pass any of three legislative provisions relating to authorization for the war in Kosovo.
Or are you saying that Congress has allowed the President to take military action after issuing some type of “written approval” short of a formal authorization? Please provide a cite.
And the idea that the war powers of Congress consist of stopping the President should he become war-happy turns the Constitution on its head.
The Constitution could not be more plain about the affirmative power of Congress to declare war (and by logical extention, authorize the use of force). Congress is not a bunch of dog catchers, trying to stop an Executive Branch run amok, it is a co-equal branch of government with very specific powers given to it.
That simple fact is not changed by time or tides.
Are you in the least bit familiar with the history behind the War Powers Act? The entirety of VietNam was fought FOR YEARS on the say-so of the President, with no Congressional involvement. The War Powers Act was meant to put a brake on such future activity.
Think about it:
Viet Nam: TEN YEARS of combat without the War Powers Act.
And you say that 90 days is giving the President ADDITIONAL power?
What do they teach children in school, these days?
Well, let us see. When I got my masters degree in history several years back, I was taught that Congress approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964 which allowed President Johnson to undertake a defense of South Vietnam – as well as the whole of Southeast Asia, which was later modified by an appropriations rider to prohibit intervention in Cambodia – in the name of freedom and everything good. Congress followed up the war effort with with years of supplemental and regular appropriations bills, right up until 1973, if my memory serves.
Since you’re so familiar with the situation, I’m sure that there’s no need to go into the lies about what occured in the Tonkin Gulf in the days preceeding the resolution’s passage make the Niger/uranium claim look like holy truth… Or are my fancy-pants schools wrong about that?
The WPR does have other provisions besides the 60/90 day time limit that are substantial brakes upon a President’s warmaking ability. Chief among them is giving Congress the ability to direct the President to withdraw troops from hostilities upon the passage of a concurrent resolution. Since you proclaim your expertise in matters of the WPR, perhaps you can complete the arguemtn of why there may be good reason why arguments that this section is unconstitutional.
And perhaps you could also enlighten the world about the severability clause and why it is reasonable to take a position that the WPR may not be a wholly great or a wholly horrible piece of legislation.
We do not have the manufacturing capacity anymore and are more and more incapable or performing a feat like winning ww2 again. Our factories are moving to red china. The United States is no longer the arsenal of democracy.
What this means if and when red china declares war on the United States is up for debate. If most of our factories and high tech is in red china, then what do we do if we go to war with red china and they cut off all high tech and all manufacturing?
Oh bloody hell I knew you’d show up sooner or later…
Look, there’s only one thing to say about “red China”… it goes really well with a white tablecloth.
Susanann, please actually read the original post before you pick a tangent… the point of the question has absolutely nothing to do with our physical capacity to wage war, and in any case the fact that Nike makes a lot of shoes there doesn’t mean Pratt & Whitney are going to start giving them proprietary tech.
The ability of a country to fight a war, our physical capacity to make war, has everything to do with waging war or declaring war.
A country with no factories nor high tech is not going to do much declaring of anything, and certainly not against the countries that it has its outsourced factories in, or against a country that is allied with a country that has all of our machinery.
The Constitution is many things, two that it is not are self-defining and self-enforcing. What you may think should happen de jure may or may not bear any relationship to the de facto relationship between branches of government. Again, this is because legal precedents are few and far between, which I alreaday explained is good in the sense of avoiding unnecessary SoP issues, which are by definition difficult to resolve (who has the power?). This is why things tend to get done a certain way that may not seem to meet the exact wording of the Constitution. But, on this issue, ONLY Congress can challenge the president. No amount of bluster about the plain meaning of the US Constitution makes one bit of difference, even if you are William Rhenquist. Which, by the way, he’d never express an opinion on anyway.
As a storm of biblical proportions is coming in, I’ll add to this later.
Anyway, only Congress can challenge any military action taken by the President, because he is the Commander in Chief. Yes, this does turn the process on it’s head. Which is why Congress has so many ways to stop the President. But, again, reality is that the POTUS can issue any legal order to the military at any time and they must carry it out.
Your best chance to stop a crazy or rogue military action in the short run is a breakdown in military discipline. Think about it, Congress (very powerful, granted) cannot do anything immediately to break up the chain of command.
Beagle – How DARE you get practical on me in the middle of a debate!
I see where you’re coming from, and I think you accurately describe the current situation on the status of war powers, as shared by the Executive and Legislative.
What I am arguing, however, is that Congress should be more assertive in defending its war powers. For countless reasons, I think Congress has become lax in defending its territory here, and I think that’s a huge mistake.
Take the most recent Iraq war resolution - I do not think that it was unconstitutional, but I think Congress acted like a bunch of idiots in giving the president the power to initate a war so far in advance of when the attack was expected to come. If Congress had more zealously guarded its war powers, it could have said that no vote would take place on the resolution until events immediately required authorizing the President to initiate a war.
So, am I saying that it would have been easy for Congress to delay action on the Presidents Sept 2002 request for war powers? No. But it would have been smarter to delay the vote until war appeared imminent.
Congress can stop any war anytime it wants to, it has the power of the budget, the money.
It can cut off funds immediately, and can also repeal the war powers act if it wants to. No president is going to be able to wage a war if congress does not approve. True, it may take a few months for a bill to pass over a presidential veto, but any veto by a president can be overruled and the war stopped. Congress can even prevent a standing army, and then the president can do nothing.
If the president then continues to make war contrary to the consent of congress, he will then be impeached and removed from office. Impeachment and removal can take place very quicklly(days) if congress is in a hurry and resolute.
As far as “declaring” war, that has been debated since the continental congress. The articles of confederation gave congress the power to make war, it was changed in our constitution that the congress only had the power to "declare " war. A congress cant really start a war without the presidents approval. The president is commander in chief, and he can just not do anything until the next election or his impeachment.
Our constitution was specifically designed to be able to stop or prevent war, not to start one.
