Last Friday, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo was on Hardball with Chris Matthews (transcript here). Matthews was asking Cuomo what his concerns were with the Democratic leadership (and the current field of candidates for the 2008 presidential election) in relation to Iran. After Cuomo cited the Constitution ("The Congress shall have the power to declare war"), the wildly impressed Matthews wondered why so few politicians seemed familiar with this obscure clause:
Cuomo left out post-war military action in China, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Somalia, several attacks on Iraq under Clinton, and numerous other war-like acts about which Congress "never spoke out" (never mind actually declaring states of war). Chris Matthews then mentioned that a number of representatives who had supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution now say, "Oh, we didn't vote to authorize the war. We just gave the president the authority to make a decision, and we thought he was going to continue with inspections." He asked Cuomo what his response would be to such people:
He then used the Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq invasion as a demonstration of how right the Founders were, but I'm less interested in his critique of Bush or Congress than in the constitutional question - a question that, perhaps, isn't raised often enough.

According to Article I, Section 8 (and/or Article II, Section 2), of the US Constitution:

Were military actions like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War constitutional? Are "authorizations for use of military force" without a declaration of war constitutional?

Has Congress, in effect, amended the Constitution through "persistent evasion" or is there constitutional justification for delegating the initiation of military action to the president?

Regardless of the likelihood of the success or failure of such amendments, in your opinion:

Should the Constitution be amended to explicitly give the Commander-in-Chief the right to engage in military action without a declaration of war from Congress? Why or why not?

Should the Constitution be amended to explicitly prohibit military action by the Executive without a declaration of war by Congress? Why or why not?

Were military actions like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War constitutional? Are "authorizations for use of military force" without a declaration of war constitutional?

No they were not constitutional. All military engagements undertaken by the US must be expressly authorized by the Congress in the form of a declaration of war. The ONLY instance that such a declaration is understood to not be necessary is under immediate attack. Basically, you do not need a Congressional declaration of war in order to defend yourselves. Other than that, the declaration clause is the very check on executive power that is supposed to prevent imperialist adventures at the whim of the executive. Congress has shrugged its responsibility in this regard and has shrugged it even more in its responsibility to hold back funding if the military engagement is no longer favorable. The Congress has the power, but it refuses to use it. Its "authorization of force" definitely meant "declaration of war" at the time to the reps who passed it, but they went short of declaring war because of the symbolism that it represents. I mean, the US has been in over 200 military engagements in its history, some major, some minor, and war has been declared only 5 times. It seems that the Congress is all to lax with its responsibilities.

Has Congress, in effect, amended the Constitution through "persistent evasion" or is there constitutional justification for delegating the initiation of military action to the president?

Only when the country is directly under attack can military action be taken by the President because we would be de facto in war. The Congress has conceded its constitutional powers for expediency and against the strength of popular presidents.

Should the Constitution be amended to explicitly give the Commander-in-Chief the right to engage in military action without a declaration of war from Congress? Why or why not?

Never. It goes against the very principles of a constitutional republic. The FFs did not want the power to age war to be given to only one branch. The power is divided between the COngress and the Executive. Congress declares war, the executive wages it.

Should the Constitution be amended to explicitly prohibit military action by the Executive without a declaration of war by Congress? Why or why not?


No. Its already there. Its just been misinterpreted for years by an overzealous Executive and a meek Congress. The Congress has incredible power over the waging of war. The real power actually. If they concede that power to the Executive, then you get your Vietnams and Iraqs.