Posted on 01/12/2024 6:53:30 AM PST by daniel1212
In March, in a joint resolution, Congress directed the president to terminate military hostilities against Iran unless authorized by Congress. ..President Donald Trump vetoed the measure, and Congress lacked the votes to override. During recent decades, such has often been the end result of legislative efforts to limit presidential war making...
The 1973 War Powers Resolution took effect when Congress’s actual powers to declare war, appropriate funds, and organize the armed forces were at a low point....
Consecutive administrations have expanded the executive branch’s authority to use military force, and Congress has often become sidelined in the process. This reality stems partly from the inclination of many lawmakers to avoid tough votes on the use of force...
The nature of warfare has changed as well. New technologies, the evolution of operational concepts and partnerships with other forces, and the ways in which adversaries now challenge the United States further complicate questions about the proper scope of congressional authority over use of force decisions...
Since its founding, the United States has engaged in dozens of instances of use of force abroad of varying size, and only around 10 percent of those engagements have been subject to a congressional war declaration or other authorization.3 .... The 1973 War Powers Resolution, introduced in the wake of President Richard Nixon’s secret bombings of Cambodia, was meant to formalize a sequence of executive-legislative consultation, notification, authorization, and termination when placing U.S. forces in “hostilities.”..
Since it was passed into law, the War Powers Resolution has been deemed unconstitutional by every president.
This stands in contrast to Biden’s stance in 2007, when, during a Q&A with the Boston Globe, he said: “The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorise war and the use of force.”
Have US presidents always sought congressional approval for military strikes?
No. There have been several instances when US presidents have carried out military strikes without seeking congressional approval.
In December, the US military launched strikes against three sites used by Kataib Hezbollah, a major Iran-aligned armed group, and other unnamed affiliated groups in Iraq. Biden did not seek congressional approval beforehand.
The US president also ordered air strikes in Syria in February 2021 without the approval of Congress, a move that also drew criticism from lawmakers.
In January 2020, Democrats questioned whether it was legal for former president Donald Trump to order the assassination of the Iranian military commander, Qassem Soleimani, without congressional authorisation.
In March 2011, former president Barack Obama ordered air strikes in Libya without formal authorisation from Congress. Obama argued that the fighting in Libya did not amount to “hostilities” that would trigger the need for congressional approval.
Former president Bill Clinton escalated the 1999 NATO bombing against Serbia in Kosovo without formal authorisation from Congress. - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/12/did-biden-violate-the-us-constitution-in-bombing-yemens-houthi-sites
Declaring war gives the executive branch almost unlimited powers. There hasn’t been a President since Ike that could be trusted with that.
It wont happen again in our lifetimes.
That just goes to show how ass-backwards our government has become in comparison to its original structure.
The strongest branch of the U.S. government was designed to be the legislature, not the chief executive. This idea that the President can veto a measure aimed at limited his authority in a matter that is supposed to be legislated by Congress is ludicrous.
Did you read the article and my first comment?
A requirement to obtain this Congressional authorization is unreasonable in the modern world in which waiting for Congressional authorization would enable the enemy to engage in extensive destructive activity before US offensive action could take place, and would enable the enemy to better prepared for it. China could invade Taiwan, Iran etc. could launch an comprehensive offensive attack against US and Int. shipping, none of which would fall under under imminent attack, and against which simply defensive actions would not suffice, before Congressional authorization finally came.
Rather, Congress could consider allowing a 36 hour window for the US to engage in retaliatory action to take place while Congress comes together to vote on it.
Congress has not declared war since World War II. Nor has it formally approved, in any meaningful alternative way (except belatedly through the appropriations process), several of the major conflicts the nation has engaged in since then — notably, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Kosovo War, or 2011 Libya operation.In addition, the War Powers Act of 1973 needs revision. The current act only calls for the president to consult Congress before using force. It then effectively allows them free rein for 60 days before requiring congressional support for further action. - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/war-powers-in-the-era-of-joe-biden-and-lloyd-austin/
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution...It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, however, Congress has disapproved all such incidents, and no allegations have resulted in successful legal actions taken against a president.[1]. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality
The primary check on the President's ability to wage war is the purse controlled by Congress: that's why the legislature ultimately has control. However, the President is Commander and Chief under the Constitution, so if Congress allocates $800 billion for defense, he can do a lot of commanding and chiefing without needing to ask for more money. You can't have it both ways: if the world is so dangerous that we need $800 billion defense budgets, then Congress can't exercise command over the use of the forces it has paid for. That's by Constitutional design.
If you read the Constitution, the primary concern of the Declaration of War powers allocated to Congress is American liberty: only after a declaration by Congress can the President charge someone with treason. The Founders didn't give a rat's patooty about foreigners-- they had their own governments and powers in the 18th Century made and broke treaties all the time and skirmished all the time.
Last, we still have what SCOTUS has already deemed a Declaration of War in place: the AUMF following 9/11. The Houthis have attacked US ships, so I don't think a declaration is needed to retaliate. If it is, we already have one because the Houthis are attacking to defend Hamas they're classified as terrorists under the AUMF.
The problem isn't the attack on the Houthis. The problem is that Biden was erected not elected President and the Uniparty Congress is more interested in its own graft than in exercising oversight.
“This idea that the President can veto a measure aimed at limited his authority in a matter that is supposed to be legislated by Congress is ludicrous.”
The War Powers Resolution stipulates the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and prohibits armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days. The president is elected, “hired,” to be the commander of the military. His powers do not declare war but are there to take action against aggressors that are initiating hostilities toward, and not in compliance of need of, US interests. The president has to make decisions that can be accomplished in minutes to protect people and places. This is why he has support around him 24/7/365. And when he is out of use, there is a line of people to do his work.
So until congress is available 24/7/365, then he’s the one that has to be there to save lives. Waiting for them costs lives. And congress people were elected many times at the same time as the president. What makes them superior? And fighting off attacks and war are not the same thing. This is why they put time limits on it.
wy69
tried to do a quick check of the last president who did NOT authorize military force during his presidency.
That would be William Henry Harrison. He died 30 days into his term - probably never had time to give a military order, but I’m sure there were probably ongoing skirmishes with the natives anyway.
Lincoln was probably the last to give no military orders for conflicts abroad - so long as we consider both sides to be on U.S. territory.
The problem is that this has rarely — if ever — been the case. You have had the WPA being used to justify support for insurrections in foreign countries, bombing raids on Serbia, and now military strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen to defend the commercial shipping interests of a whole bunch of countries that conspicuously DO NOT include the U.S.
What this ought to demonstrate to many people here on FR who have no understanding of how our country should work is that the United States is designed under our Constitution to be isolationist by its very nature. That’s because the basic principle of limited government Is incompatible with the kind of imperial globalist nonsense that has become our way of life here for more than 120 years.
“...the United States is designed under our Constitution to be isolationist by its very nature.”
It was at one time when it was designed back in the late 1700’s. But that has changed a lot since then as we became more dependent on other countries for our survival.
“but only in the context of military action that is authorized by the President in response to direct threats against the United States.
The problem is the expansion of the definition of direct threat. For the “privilege” of trade we have had to use our powers of persuasion a few times like wars, tariffs, and trade agreements with certain countries in our best interest. For political interests from the attacks and destruction of lives and property in other countries local support became important. We are no longer self sufficient by a long shot and require the practical and functional interation of most coutries in the world in the best interest of our people. And there are people out there that don’t see it the same way so we need to react in this fast paced effort to survival.
And taking the decision away from a source, in this case the POTUS, that has the responsibility to act in minutes rather than wainting for the people to get a shower and go to their work at congress is not feasible when it takes about twenty minutes for the first sub launched weapon to hit the CONUS. Someone has to do it and the POTUS is elected for that purpose. Taking the prompt reaction away is what I would consider unintelligent as at worst, it is an incentive not to launch against us. And that is it’s main use.
wy69
Just because they ignored it doesn't necessarily mean they "deemed" it unconstitutional. Sometimes our national security can't afford to wait around for the Congress to get its act together.
And the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war but nowhere does it stipulate that war may not be waged absent its declaration (oops!).
In fact the US has engaged in combat or (armed kinetic intervention), depending how you count it, about a hundred times (give or take 10 or 20) since the nation's founding. On the other hand, the Congress has passed EXACTLY 11 Declarations of War, and eight of them were during the two World Wars. Even Saint Abraham failed to get a declaration of war before sending hundreds of thousands of his subjects to slaughter.
So whining about undeclared wars is a little self-indulgent and a lot sophistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.