Full Version: Who really has the power to wage war?
The Constitution is usually the least important part of any debate about government nowadays... which is kind of disappointing. We talk about the war in Iraq and the question usually arises: who runs America's wars, President or Congress? Fortunately there were these guys who wrote down a kind of "U.S. Government FAQ" that is frequently called The Constitution. What does it really say about how the United States is supposed to run a war? Here's what a blog over at the Newspaper that shall not be named says on the subject:
Lets take a look at the Constitution for a second. Here's what it has to say about Congress's power when it comes to war:
In contrast, what it says about the President's authority for warfare:
Simple question then: what are the respective authorities/responsibilities of Congress and the President when it comes to waging war?
QUOTE
When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.
The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.
The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.
Lets take a look at the Constitution for a second. Here's what it has to say about Congress's power when it comes to war:
QUOTE(Article 1 @ Section 8)
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
In contrast, what it says about the President's authority for warfare:
QUOTE(Article 2)
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States
Simple question then: what are the respective authorities/responsibilities of Congress and the President when it comes to waging war?
What are the respective authorities/responsibilities of Congress and the President when it comes to waging war?
An excellent question UJ, probably spurred on by the Ron Paul debate
.
The answer is that it is the job of the Congress to both declare war and to apropriate funds for the war. The President is the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but he should only be able to utlize those forces under Congressional consent. It is obvious that this is the way the Founders intended in that they would not have wanted a single branch to have complete control over the military and to argue otherwise lacks a serious understanding of the Founding Fathers. And just as they can delcare war, they can also undeclare it. While undeclaring war is the bark, withholding appropriations is the bite. A President cannot run a war without the financial backing and the idea is that the Executive would be forced to quell hostilities. However, Bush is calling Congress' bluff much in the same manner as Teddy Roosevelt did. As a display of the United States's power, Teddy had the Great White Fleet sail around the world. The problem was that Congress could only afford for the navy to make it half way. Teddy promptly told the Congress that they could either fund the voyage or they could let the ships sink half way around the world. What do you think the Congress did? It's funny how history repeats itself to the present day.
Iraq is inevitably going to come in this thread so I might as well address it. Congressional authorization for force is sticky issue in my mind. They did not exactly "declare war" but they did authorize force, which can be argued is one and the same. War has only been declared 5 times in our history despite over 200 military conflicts in our history. It appears that a declaration of war has become symbolic and hence political, making politicians run in fright at the sound. Its time for the Congress to reassert its authority in the warmaking arena and take back the power that is rightfully theirs. The Executive cannot/should be allowed to go into whatever engagement they want and the Congress should "man-up" and actually declare war if they choose to partake in a conflict so that there are no mistakes about our intentions.
An excellent question UJ, probably spurred on by the Ron Paul debate
.The answer is that it is the job of the Congress to both declare war and to apropriate funds for the war. The President is the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but he should only be able to utlize those forces under Congressional consent. It is obvious that this is the way the Founders intended in that they would not have wanted a single branch to have complete control over the military and to argue otherwise lacks a serious understanding of the Founding Fathers. And just as they can delcare war, they can also undeclare it. While undeclaring war is the bark, withholding appropriations is the bite. A President cannot run a war without the financial backing and the idea is that the Executive would be forced to quell hostilities. However, Bush is calling Congress' bluff much in the same manner as Teddy Roosevelt did. As a display of the United States's power, Teddy had the Great White Fleet sail around the world. The problem was that Congress could only afford for the navy to make it half way. Teddy promptly told the Congress that they could either fund the voyage or they could let the ships sink half way around the world. What do you think the Congress did? It's funny how history repeats itself to the present day.
Iraq is inevitably going to come in this thread so I might as well address it. Congressional authorization for force is sticky issue in my mind. They did not exactly "declare war" but they did authorize force, which can be argued is one and the same. War has only been declared 5 times in our history despite over 200 military conflicts in our history. It appears that a declaration of war has become symbolic and hence political, making politicians run in fright at the sound. Its time for the Congress to reassert its authority in the warmaking arena and take back the power that is rightfully theirs. The Executive cannot/should be allowed to go into whatever engagement they want and the Congress should "man-up" and actually declare war if they choose to partake in a conflict so that there are no mistakes about our intentions.
What are the respective authorities/responsibilities of Congress and the President when it comes to waging war?
Congress authorizes war by voting to give the president the option to use military force. Congress is expected to investigate and ensure that it is making the proper decision. It has the authority to call witnesses on the matter, investigate on its own, etc.
Once Congress gives the president the authority, he conducts the war. It isn't micro-managed by Congress, nor should it be. If the people truly wish to withdraw from the war (they once supported), they can place pressure on Congress and withdraw funding, effectively ending it. That is how the people (via Congress) and the President, respectively hold war power.
Congress authorizes war by voting to give the president the option to use military force. Congress is expected to investigate and ensure that it is making the proper decision. It has the authority to call witnesses on the matter, investigate on its own, etc.
Once Congress gives the president the authority, he conducts the war. It isn't micro-managed by Congress, nor should it be. If the people truly wish to withdraw from the war (they once supported), they can place pressure on Congress and withdraw funding, effectively ending it. That is how the people (via Congress) and the President, respectively hold war power.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.