Article 1 Section 8
"The Congress shall have the Power...to declare War..."
Ever since World War II, the United States Congress has ceded its constitutional war powers to the executive branch and to the United Nations.
Korea was a "police action", under authority of the United Nations.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized Lyndon Johnson to "...assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty...", but it was not a declaration of war.
The Persian Gulf War Resolution authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.
Neither Bill Clinton's interventions in the Balkans, the war in Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq were supported by a formal Congressional declaration of war.
Going to war is the most serious and consequential action of the state. Our Founding Fathers intended, therefor, that before our government engaged in acts of war, the will of the people should be expressed through the agency of their elected representatives.
Now, we are effectively at war with Libya - a country which is far from central to our national interests. No one knows where this action will lead; will we be dragged into deploying ground troops? Will we engage in nation-building? I believe we should have stayed out of this fray. And I think, had Congress shouldered its proper constitutional role, we would have. Instead, the decision was left to a weak President, to an incompetent Secretary of State and to a United Nations Security Council which is quite happy to have the United States bear the burden of intervention.
- Comment (71)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 grants the President the power to act when 'under attack' or when in 'serious danger'. The President must notify congress of such action within 48 hours and no such action can last longer than 60 days without congressional approval.
The other long term disagreement involves what, exactly, constitutes a formal declaration of war?
More interesting is which branch has the power to declare the war over? Congress can cease funding the war, but that is problematical at best since to do so in the midst of a major engagement could not be honored by the executive.
Jul '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Afghanistan: 10 years and counting. Iraq: 8 years and counting.....
Jan '11
Re: Article 1 Section 8
I admit, I'm afraid of this one.
I've been interested in the debates about whether attacking Libya is in our national interests. Haven't made up my mind yet, and the debate here is well-considered. I'm going to listen to my betters on that issue.
But I think Kenneth makes the correct point. We seem to have abandoned any process when it comes to war.
The advantage of having an executive is that he can make quick decisions when deliberation takes too much time. So really, that's the trade-off ... the real authority to declare war resides with Congress, but we allow presidents to make decisions when time is of the essence.
So what happened here? Time wasn't of the essence. Instead of Congress, Obama did the deliberation -- privately, along with his own chosen advisors. and behind closed doors. And what Obama obviously decided was that he was willing to go to war, but only if the UN shared the expense. When the UN showed that they were willing to get involved, Obama then signed on.
But by then, it wasn't his decision. That decision belonged to Congress.
Oct '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Kenneth
Afghanistan: 10 years and counting. Iraq: 8 years and counting..... · Mar 18 at 10:53pm
Must have received congressional approval?
Dec '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
I agree with Kenneth on this for many reasons too numerous to mention here, but the short of it is this. Congress has abdicated it's responsibility in the process that provides them an easy out for saying they were for the war before they were against it or visa versa.
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
The president asks for a declaration of war and it is offered up in both chambers and voted on separately.
The United States Senate. Wars are formally ended with a treaty and only the Senate has that power. And this is the major point. Total warfare, like it was waged in 1945, is longer an option. Unless someone declares war on us, I guess, and that hasn't happened since 1941, either.
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Operation Desert Storm was approved by Congress. Why should I not consider that a formal declaration of war?
I agree with you completely on Libya. My first reaction to the news was to wonder how our involvement will escalate. My second reaction was to wonder why Republicans have apparently not publicly objected to the President entering war without approval.
It's not too late for the GOP to raise the matter.
Jul '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Aaron Miller: Operation Desert Storm was approved by Congress. Why should I not consider that a formal declaration of war?
I agree with you completely on Libya. My first reaction to the news was to wonder how our involvement will escalate. My second reaction was to wonder why Republicans have apparently not publicly objected to the President entering war without approval.
It's not too late for the GOP to raise the matter. · Mar 19 at 7:58am
What Congress approved was armed action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, in accordance with U.N. resolutions. What we got was a costly 8-year war.
I realize that a Congressional "authorization" may seem like the same thing as a declaration of war, but ever since Congress abdicated its solemn constitutional role, the executive branch has seen itself free to engage in ad hoc and poorly-defined military adventures, some of which - Serbia, Kosovo and now Libya - served no strategic interest and might not have happened had Congress acted as the check upon executive adventurism that the Founders intended it to be.
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
As long as Congress votes to continue funding, is not that an act of agreement?
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Congress should have as much say in whether or not to continue a war as whether or not to enter it, I agree. They should also be able to determine, with the generals, the primary goals.
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
No, No, No, No. Did I say, "No?" There can only be one civilian commander-in-chief, not 536 of them.
Policy and goals is not the purview of a committee. Everyone loves a committee because blame is spread. But the blame game is the loser's game and if you're getting militarily adventuresome, losing is not the preferred outcome.
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Kenneth
I realize that a Congressional "authorization" may seem like the same thing as a declaration of war, but ever since Congress abdicated its solemn constitutional role, the executive branch has seen itself free to engage in ad hoc and poorly-defined military adventures, some of which - Serbia, Kosovo and now Libya - served no strategic interest and might not have happened had Congress acted as the check upon executive adventurism that the Founders intended it to be. · Mar 19 at 8:10am
Someone help me: I've got this song running through my head and I just can't seem to recall all the lyrics. Let's see, how does it go? Oh, yes ... "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of ...." I'm hung up on that last stanza - can anyone finish it for me?
I'm not all that bright.
Jul '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Congress is loathe to de-fund an ongoing military adventure because it seems like a betrayal of our troops in the field. This is all the more reason for Congress to have a proper debate, during which the goals of a military deployment are defined in advance. Do not unleash the dogs of war without a clear consensus between the executive and legislative branches and a clear statement of purpose, supported by the populace.
Consider Iraq, for instance. The goal was supposed to be the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But Congress didn't consider what was to come next. Had they clearly declared war upon Hussein's government, we could have signed a peace treaty with Saddam's Baathist successors and brought our troops home.
Jul '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Matthew Gilley
Kenneth
I realize that a Congressional "authorization" may seem like the same thing as a declaration of war, but ever since Congress abdicated its solemn constitutional role, the executive branch has seen itself free to engage in ad hoc and poorly-defined military adventures, some of which - Serbia, Kosovo and now Libya - served no strategic interest and might not have happened had Congress acted as the check upon executive adventurism that the Founders intended it to be. · Mar 19 at 8:10am
Someone help me: I've got this song running through my head and I just can't seem to recall all the lyrics. Let's see, how does it go? Oh, yes ... "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of ...." I'm hung up on that last stanza - can anyone finish it for me?
I'm not all that bright. · Mar 19 at 9:30am
I'm not aware that we're facing Libyan pirates.
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
EJHill
No, No, No, No. Did I say, "No?" There can only be one civilian commander-in-chief, not 536 of them.
The Commander-in-Chief works for the people. We need centralized and decisive leadership during war. I'm not suggesting that Congress should interfere in daily or monthly strategy. But a President does not have the right to take a war in any direction he chooses or prolong it by setting the primary objectives on his own authority.
If Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war, then it certainly has the authority to define the limits of that war... including long-term objectives and rules of engagement. There can be no divorce of politics from war.
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Apparently you haven't checked out Khadafi's wardrobe.
In all seriousness, though, I'm not making a flippant reference. Look at the Gulf of Sidra incident in 1986 that preceded our airstrikes in Tripoli later that year - even as recently as the last quarter century, the U.S. Navy has had to operate off the Libyan coast to assert our right of passage in international waters.
I enjoy the back-and-forth, but I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this. I look at the expedition against the Barbary Pirates as a strong indication that the Founders did not intend such a parsimonious role for the executive in foreign affairs (or such a limited role for the U.S. for that matter, although I don't think that's what you're arguing here).
Jul '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Aaron Miller
EJHill
No, No, No, No. Did I say, "No?" There can only be one civilian commander-in-chief, not 536 of them.
The Commander-in-Chief works for the people. We need centralized and decisive leadership during war. I'm not suggesting that Congress should interfere in daily or monthly strategy. But a President does not have the right to take a war in any direction he chooses or prolong it by setting the primary objectives on his own authority.
If Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war, then it certainly has the authority to define the limits of that war... including long-term objectives and rules of engagement. There can be no divorce of politics from war. · Mar 19 at 9:56am
Well said, Aaron.
Oct '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
What is it we want? Congress approves of actions, congress funds actions, the commander-in-chief executes actions; all we seem to be missing are the powdered wigs.
Congress has the power to declare war -- there are no formal rituals required.
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution granting the Executive power to initiate war; that may fairly be considered an abdication of congressional power or it may be considered as a contingent delegation of authority providing for the national defense during times of emergency.
The Congress controls war making in three important ways, (1) limited time horizon on executive action, (2) control of funding and (3) impeachment of the executive.
Do we wish to endanger ourselves by requiring that the powdered wigs be returned from the cleaners before the commander-in-chief can act?
Jul '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Matthew Osborn: What is it we want?
Do we wish to endanger ourselves by requiring that the powdered wigs be returned from the cleaners before the commander-in-chief can act? · Mar 19 at 10:12am
I want our government to follow the Constitution. To suggest that we can engage in military adventures without the proper debate and authorization by Congress is to accede to the idea of a living Constitution.
May '10
Re: Article 1 Section 8
Let's take the last three war resolutions passed in Dec. 1941:
"Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the United states, is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."
"Bring the conflict to a successful termination..." If you used that phrase in 1941 it meant total surrender and capitulation of the enemy and everyone understood that. Use that phrase today and you'd get a 150 definitions of successful termination.
That said, would any in Congress on that day have also said, "Yeah, and we better have troops there in the 21st Century, too!"
*continued*
Edited on Mar 19, 2011 at 10:25am