Playing politics with war powers

The Hill, DavidRivkin.com ^ | 06/07/2011 | David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

[IndePundit]

Ever since the War Powers Resolution became law, presidents have made clear that — whatever its reporting requirements may be — it does not and cannot limit their constitutional authority as chief executive and commander in chief to commit U.S. forces into armed conflicts around the world. Indeed, although numerous reports have been made to Congress after the deployment of U.S. troops, no president has accepted that the War Powers Resolution governs each and every use of American military force, or that it requires any specific congressional authorization before the president can send U.S. forces into harm’s way or can keep them there.

The current administration is no different. A Justice Department legal analysis, prepared with respect to the current Libyan mission and dated April 1, 2011, identified as “one possible constitutionally-based limit” on the president’s “authority to employ military force in defense of important national interests — a planned military engagement that constitutes a ‘war’ within the meaning of the Declaration of War Clause may require prior congressional authorization.”

This is certainly true, although determining what constitutes a “war” for these purposes is notoriously difficult and requires a careful analysis of the conflict’s likely duration, scope and the decisiveness of the goals being sought by the warring parties. Thus, the closer one gets to an all-out war between major military powers involving protracted and intense combat, with the total defeat of the enemy being the goal, the stronger is the argument that the congressional declaration of war or, at least, congressional authorization, is constitutionally required. As a practical matter, every president faced with a conflict that arguably met these tests (the first and second Gulf Wars, for example) since the War Powers Resolution was enacted, has obtained a congressional authorization...

[rollo tomasi]

- it does not and cannot limit their constitutional authority as chief executive and commander in chief to commit U.S. forces into armed conflicts around the world


Where is the above enumerated?

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

Where is the authority to exert and start conflict at? Contrary to popular belief, the Chief Executive has severely limited powers for good reason. Congress has forgone checking these powers (Article I Section 8) while Presidents run wild, defecating on Washington's advice to seek neutrality among other factions.

We are far from original intent to the point of making feces up to suit whatever devious pragmatic solutions that seem "right" in the here and now.

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies—all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature--Hamilton #69