4 ms·

USA hasn't formally declared war since 1942. The Executive just continues to expand its power.

by rhcom2 1y ago

msgodel 1y ago
I assumed Vietnam and Korea were officially declared but after looking it up I see they weren't. It's kind of crazy they even managed to draft people without congress approving it. The world wars really did kill the old American system of government.
- nradov 1y ago
  Congress did approve the draft with the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  In all fairness, Congress is slow by design, and wars happen a lot faster than they used to. It would be insane if a hypothetical adversary could prevent the US from engaging in war just by preventing a Congressional quorum. Presidential powers are certainly too broad and too deep, but I don't think a country can function in 2025 with the system the founders envisioned - shit just moves too fast these days.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    I think if we actually had a good reason to be fighting congress would act quickly enough and a state that can't find enough consensus to even defend itself shouldn't exist at all. It all seems fine to me.
nozzlegear 1y ago
> USA hasn't formally declared war since 1942. That's true but misleading. Congress has consistently authorized military action in almost¹ all of the extended wars and conflicts the US has been involved in after 1942. It's not like those presidents have ignored Congress and not sought congressional approval. ¹ Weasel word: I'm sure I've missed some but the big one I can think of is Libya during the Obama years, which didn't have congressional approval and wasn't a declaration of war either.
- righthand 1y ago
  It’s not misleading. War is impossible for Congress to disapprove. You cannot pretend that option is even on the table when a Potus has expanded power to push the country into a war; how can congress disapprove an ongoing conflict in a country that prides itself on using military force?
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    I get what you're trying to argue but the point above was in the opposite direction - that congress has continually approved military action for what are (obviously) wars in all but name many times since 1942. Congress is not-really-declaring-war even more than prior centuries, independent from how the presidents (particularly the latest in this case) also totally-aren't-declaring-war more without congress often than ever before.
  - nozzlegear 1y ago
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think most Americans are weary of war and don't want to get involved in another – even if we're proud of our military forces. I would expect my senators to vote against approving extended involvement in an Iran conflict or war past 60 days. Furthermore, I don't think it's impossible for Congress to disapprove anymore with how polarized our politics are. Certainly any kind of boots-on-the-ground action is going to be anathema to both parties as well.
    - righthand 1y ago
      I guess my larger point is how can Congress vote down a war that started 60 days ago and has a goal of lasting longer than 60 days? Even entertaining the idea they vote to pull troops out after a conflict, does an authoritarian, overpowered, executive branch comply?
      - nozzlegear 1y ago
        That's an excellent question, I don't have an answer for it. I can easily see Trump and his admin ignoring a vote to withdraw from the Iranian conflict. It's not hard to imagine him justifying it with an all-caps post on Truth Social claiming "the American people have no confidence in our Congress" or something like that. In an ideal American government, we would expect the Secretary of Defense to step in and follow congressional orders by commanding the military to withdraw – but we know that Hegseth will unequivocally side with Trump. That would be a Constitutional crisis. In Bob Woodward's books Rage, Peril, and War, he reported that General Mark Milley, Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during his first presidency, made what he called an "oath" with the other service chiefs to prevent Trump from starting a war with Iran during his final days in office, after January 6th, 2021. Technically, the CJCS and officers are advisors only and have no actual control of the military, but Milley's plan was to exploit gaps between what's legal and what happens in reality. He knew that any major military actions had to come through him, and if he said "no," it would gum up the works even if it's not legal. The CJCS and their officers all take an oath to the Constitution, not the president; the same is true for all officers and enlisted personnel in the military. We can only hope they'd honor that oath.
javiramos 1y ago
Wasn’t the Gulf War approved by Congress abd formally declared?

USA hasn't formally declared war since 1942. The Executive just continues to expand its power.

by rhcom2 1y ago

USA hasn't formally declared war since 1942. The Executive just continues to expand its power.

I assumed Vietnam and Korea were officially declared but after looking it up I see they weren't. It's kind of crazy they even managed to draft people without congress approving it. The world wars really did kill the old American system of government.

nradov 1y ago
Congress did approve the draft with the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.
BobaFloutist 1y ago
In all fairness, Congress is slow by design, and wars happen a lot faster than they used to. It would be insane if a hypothetical adversary could prevent the US from engaging in war just by preventing a Congressional quorum. Presidential powers are certainly too broad and too deep, but I don't think a country can function in 2025 with the system the founders envisioned - shit just moves too fast these days.
- msgodel 1y ago
  I think if we actually had a good reason to be fighting congress would act quickly enough and a state that can't find enough consensus to even defend itself shouldn't exist at all. It all seems fine to me.

nozzlegear 1y ago

> USA hasn't formally declared war since 1942. That's true but misleading. Congress has consistently authorized military action in almost¹ all of the extended wars and conflicts the US has been involved in after 1942. It's not like those presidents have ignored Congress and not sought congressional approval. ¹ Weasel word: I'm sure I've missed some but the big one I can think of is Libya during the Obama years, which didn't have congressional approval and wasn't a declaration of war either.

righthand 1y ago
It’s not misleading. War is impossible for Congress to disapprove. You cannot pretend that option is even on the table when a Potus has expanded power to push the country into a war; how can congress disapprove an ongoing conflict in a country that prides itself on using military force?
- zamadatix 1y ago
  I get what you're trying to argue but the point above was in the opposite direction - that congress has continually approved military action for what are (obviously) wars in all but name many times since 1942. Congress is not-really-declaring-war even more than prior centuries, independent from how the presidents (particularly the latest in this case) also totally-aren't-declaring-war more without congress often than ever before.
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think most Americans are weary of war and don't want to get involved in another – even if we're proud of our military forces. I would expect my senators to vote against approving extended involvement in an Iran conflict or war past 60 days. Furthermore, I don't think it's impossible for Congress to disapprove anymore with how polarized our politics are. Certainly any kind of boots-on-the-ground action is going to be anathema to both parties as well.
  - righthand 1y ago
    I guess my larger point is how can Congress vote down a war that started 60 days ago and has a goal of lasting longer than 60 days? Even entertaining the idea they vote to pull troops out after a conflict, does an authoritarian, overpowered, executive branch comply?
    - nozzlegear 1y ago
      That's an excellent question, I don't have an answer for it. I can easily see Trump and his admin ignoring a vote to withdraw from the Iranian conflict. It's not hard to imagine him justifying it with an all-caps post on Truth Social claiming "the American people have no confidence in our Congress" or something like that. In an ideal American government, we would expect the Secretary of Defense to step in and follow congressional orders by commanding the military to withdraw – but we know that Hegseth will unequivocally side with Trump. That would be a Constitutional crisis. In Bob Woodward's books Rage, Peril, and War, he reported that General Mark Milley, Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during his first presidency, made what he called an "oath" with the other service chiefs to prevent Trump from starting a war with Iran during his final days in office, after January 6th, 2021. Technically, the CJCS and officers are advisors only and have no actual control of the military, but Milley's plan was to exploit gaps between what's legal and what happens in reality. He knew that any major military actions had to come through him, and if he said "no," it would gum up the works even if it's not legal. The CJCS and their officers all take an oath to the Constitution, not the president; the same is true for all officers and enlisted personnel in the military. We can only hope they'd honor that oath.

javiramos 1y ago

Wasn’t the Gulf War approved by Congress abd formally declared?