3 ms·

Congress has the power to declare war. But Congress has also passed the War Powers Act which states the President can use the military for short periods of time

Congress has the power to declare war. But Congress has also passed the War Powers Act which states the President can use the military for short periods of time. Are you claiming the War Powers Act is unconstitutional?

InTheArena 2y ago
The War Powers Act is exactly the type of law that the Supreme Court has been going after. Bills that give power that was meant for one branch of government to a different branch, or abrogating that power.
- mywittyname 2y ago
  The problem with SCOTUS going after these laws is that they are a matter of practicality. If an attack is launched on the USA, the military and the President aren't going to sit back and let it happen, they will act. When the constitution was drafted, time delays necessitated that the military and the President act autonomously for the most part. Congress couldn't convene rapidly enough to expect them to have much say in all but the largest and most drawn out conflicts. The War Powers Act is codifying this implicit power. The framers never considered a situation where the President and Congress is watching a conflict play out across the world in real-time and making decisions. So it's literally impossible to say how they wanted this to be handled. That's why they gave Congress the powers to write laws.
  - secstate 2y ago
    And yet, now here we are in the 21st century, where it feels like we're on the opposite side of the time delay problem. Instead of the War Powers Act, what if we allowed congresspeople to use PEKs to vote by proxy in the case of an emergency (definition needed)? Surely that would be better than creating a all-but-in-title king out of the executive branch as concerns conflict?
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      The security issues around that are similar to the issues with electronic voting and have been covered exhaustively. You're creating the absolutely juiciest target for hacks and espionage. I would say they could meet by remote teleconference but that has issues now too with deep fakes getting better and better. On a similar note the communication time has vastly narrowed but so has the ability to perform attacks.
- mmcdermott 2y ago
  Banning bills that transfer powers around government would also hamstring regulatory agencies, wouldn't it? While there are some other rules in place, agencies making law is fundamentally a transfer of power from the Legislative branch to the Executive.
hartator 2y ago
Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary can’t pass to each other their powers. It’s indeed unconstitutional.
maxlybbert 2y ago
The War Powers Act is questionable. The US never declared war in Vietnam. The president simply sent troops to Vietnam knowing that they would end up fighting. But the president said he had that authority as commander-in-chief. The War Powers Act was supposed to address that. If the president actually has the authority to send troops into combat without a declaration of war, then Congress can’t take it away from him, just like Congress can’t make it illegal to veto bills. The War Powers Act doesn’t really set any punishment for the president if he ignores it. It effectively says that if the president does certain things (consult with Congress, follow certain timelines, issue reports) then Congress won’t complain. Presidents have generally followed those procedures without admitting that’s what they’re doing (they issue reports “consistent with” the Act, but never admit the report was required by the Act). But if a president completely ignores those requirements, Congress has to figure out what to do about it; which is exactly what would happen if the Act didn’t exist.

InTheArena 2y ago

The War Powers Act is exactly the type of law that the Supreme Court has been going after. Bills that give power that was meant for one branch of government to a different branch, or abrogating that power.

mywittyname 2y ago
The problem with SCOTUS going after these laws is that they are a matter of practicality. If an attack is launched on the USA, the military and the President aren't going to sit back and let it happen, they will act. When the constitution was drafted, time delays necessitated that the military and the President act autonomously for the most part. Congress couldn't convene rapidly enough to expect them to have much say in all but the largest and most drawn out conflicts. The War Powers Act is codifying this implicit power. The framers never considered a situation where the President and Congress is watching a conflict play out across the world in real-time and making decisions. So it's literally impossible to say how they wanted this to be handled. That's why they gave Congress the powers to write laws.
- secstate 2y ago
  And yet, now here we are in the 21st century, where it feels like we're on the opposite side of the time delay problem. Instead of the War Powers Act, what if we allowed congresspeople to use PEKs to vote by proxy in the case of an emergency (definition needed)? Surely that would be better than creating a all-but-in-title king out of the executive branch as concerns conflict?
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    The security issues around that are similar to the issues with electronic voting and have been covered exhaustively. You're creating the absolutely juiciest target for hacks and espionage. I would say they could meet by remote teleconference but that has issues now too with deep fakes getting better and better. On a similar note the communication time has vastly narrowed but so has the ability to perform attacks.
mmcdermott 2y ago
Banning bills that transfer powers around government would also hamstring regulatory agencies, wouldn't it? While there are some other rules in place, agencies making law is fundamentally a transfer of power from the Legislative branch to the Executive.

hartator 2y ago

Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary can’t pass to each other their powers. It’s indeed unconstitutional.

maxlybbert 2y ago

The War Powers Act is questionable. The US never declared war in Vietnam. The president simply sent troops to Vietnam knowing that they would end up fighting. But the president said he had that authority as commander-in-chief. The War Powers Act was supposed to address that. If the president actually has the authority to send troops into combat without a declaration of war, then Congress can’t take it away from him, just like Congress can’t make it illegal to veto bills. The War Powers Act doesn’t really set any punishment for the president if he ignores it. It effectively says that if the president does certain things (consult with Congress, follow certain timelines, issue reports) then Congress won’t complain. Presidents have generally followed those procedures without admitting that’s what they’re doing (they issue reports “consistent with” the Act, but never admit the report was required by the Act). But if a president completely ignores those requirements, Congress has to figure out what to do about it; which is exactly what would happen if the Act didn’t exist.