15 ms·

It's a sticky question how much Congress can restrain the President when executing his war powers. Obviously such an action is morally abhorrent, but some might

It's a sticky question how much Congress can restrain the President when executing his war powers. Obviously such an action is morally abhorrent, but some might argue that so is dropping an atomic bomb among a civilian population. Could Congress, had it been so inclined, have passed a law to prevent Truman from doing so? I don't know the answer, and I'm not sure you do either. Who we elect President matters. This is one reason why.

belorn 13y ago
Don't congress need to actually declare war before the President gets to execute war powers? Congress hasn't declared war in ages.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  It's well-established that Congress need not issue a formal declaration of war in order to authorize the President to use military force. Others here can probably speak better to why our Constitutional order evolved this way. My speculation has always been that many century-old laws are tangled up with special cases for times of formally declared war that are not suited to the era but too much trouble to excise.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Some would say that the lack of a formal structure of declaration of war, capitulation, occupation, and restoration of government is exactly what's been getting us in trouble and is a demonstration of what happens outside the bounds of legitimacy.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The only thing the Constitution says about the subject is that "Congress shall have the power to... declare war." It doesn't give a specific format for an "official declaration of war" or anything like that. Congress hasn't declared an official war since World War II, but the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were backed up by Congressional resolutions authorizing force against those regimes. Congress never declared war against Tripoli during the Barbary Wars (just 12 years after the signing of the Constitution) so at least historically it doesn't seem like the founding generation believed it necessary to pass some "official declaration of war" in order to signal Congress's approval for the President to execute war.
  - scotch_drinker 13y ago
    But previously, war meant some clear and present enemy like "Japan" or "Germany". Now the president has been given almost carte blanche access to fight a war on "Terror", a term so nebulous as to allow the president the right to do whatever he wants including spy on American citizens. While it's true Congress gave the president the ability to fight a War on Terror (or drugs or unicorns or whatever), it's the Congress who should be reining in that power when it gets out of hand. Instead they sit around and collect their checks. I'm not as worried about an "official declaration of war" since the Constitution isn't clear on that need. I do wish Congress would grow a set of balls and do what's necessary to rein in presidential power regarding a ridiculous war on something we can't even see, much less defeat.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Congress authorized the use of force against the Iraqi government, and Al Qaeda and agents of Al Qaeda. I don't see how the latter is any more nebulous than Congress's authorization of force against the Barbary pirates in 1801.
      - scotch_drinker 13y ago
        I'm not talking about those wars. I'm talking about the War On Terror which was the genesis for spying on Americans. We don't have a war on Al Qaeda, we have a war on Terror. It doesn't get anymore nebulous than that. Neither Bush nor Obama would stand before the American People and say that the authorization of force in Iraq justified a sweeping surveillance program that includes American citizens. But the War on Terror enables them to do exactly that because of its murkiness. I don't blame either Bush or Obama for taking advantage of the power vacuum left by Congress in the War on Terror. I just wish Congress would take some of that power back.
scotch_drinker 13y ago
The main difference is that in WWII, Congress gave the president the power to go to war through a declaration of war. In the war on whatever it is that might allow the president to spy on US citizens, Congress has practically abdicated its responsibility. Presidential power has grown significantly since Bush and continues to do so throughout the Obama terms. While that certainly proves your final point is true, I wish Congress would take back some of that power and just maybe, we'd be a little more free.

belorn 13y ago

Don't congress need to actually declare war before the President gets to execute war powers? Congress hasn't declared war in ages.

twoodfin 13y ago
It's well-established that Congress need not issue a formal declaration of war in order to authorize the President to use military force. Others here can probably speak better to why our Constitutional order evolved this way. My speculation has always been that many century-old laws are tangled up with special cases for times of formally declared war that are not suited to the era but too much trouble to excise.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Some would say that the lack of a formal structure of declaration of war, capitulation, occupation, and restoration of government is exactly what's been getting us in trouble and is a demonstration of what happens outside the bounds of legitimacy.
rayiner 13y ago
The only thing the Constitution says about the subject is that "Congress shall have the power to... declare war." It doesn't give a specific format for an "official declaration of war" or anything like that. Congress hasn't declared an official war since World War II, but the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were backed up by Congressional resolutions authorizing force against those regimes. Congress never declared war against Tripoli during the Barbary Wars (just 12 years after the signing of the Constitution) so at least historically it doesn't seem like the founding generation believed it necessary to pass some "official declaration of war" in order to signal Congress's approval for the President to execute war.
- scotch_drinker 13y ago
  But previously, war meant some clear and present enemy like "Japan" or "Germany". Now the president has been given almost carte blanche access to fight a war on "Terror", a term so nebulous as to allow the president the right to do whatever he wants including spy on American citizens. While it's true Congress gave the president the ability to fight a War on Terror (or drugs or unicorns or whatever), it's the Congress who should be reining in that power when it gets out of hand. Instead they sit around and collect their checks. I'm not as worried about an "official declaration of war" since the Constitution isn't clear on that need. I do wish Congress would grow a set of balls and do what's necessary to rein in presidential power regarding a ridiculous war on something we can't even see, much less defeat.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Congress authorized the use of force against the Iraqi government, and Al Qaeda and agents of Al Qaeda. I don't see how the latter is any more nebulous than Congress's authorization of force against the Barbary pirates in 1801.
    - scotch_drinker 13y ago
      I'm not talking about those wars. I'm talking about the War On Terror which was the genesis for spying on Americans. We don't have a war on Al Qaeda, we have a war on Terror. It doesn't get anymore nebulous than that. Neither Bush nor Obama would stand before the American People and say that the authorization of force in Iraq justified a sweeping surveillance program that includes American citizens. But the War on Terror enables them to do exactly that because of its murkiness. I don't blame either Bush or Obama for taking advantage of the power vacuum left by Congress in the War on Terror. I just wish Congress would take some of that power back.

scotch_drinker 13y ago

The main difference is that in WWII, Congress gave the president the power to go to war through a declaration of war. In the war on whatever it is that might allow the president to spy on US citizens, Congress has practically abdicated its responsibility. Presidential power has grown significantly since Bush and continues to do so throughout the Obama terms. While that certainly proves your final point is true, I wish Congress would take back some of that power and just maybe, we'd be a little more free.