Ah, the age old question between the ability to wage war, and declare war. This could get interesting.
When President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq, he decided to run the idea by Congress, just out of political courtesy. Congress concurred, and the war began. Later, George W. Bush was criticized for his decision, and accused of running an illegal war because Congress never declared war. They also accused Bush of selling the war on false evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction, one piece of evidence being audio recordings of Iraqis discussing the use of chemical weapons.
Now, President Barack Obama is mulling over the possibility of a military strike against Syria. He, and his democrat minions, the same people that criticized Bush for his willingness to wage war, and claiming that the war was illegal because it was never declared by Congress, is now saying Congress can't be trusted because of the Republicans, and that Obama can wage war without even consulting Congress. Oh, and they say they have evidence that Syria used chemical weapons. . . audio recordings of Syrians discussing the use of chemical weapons.
In 2011, President Barack Obama decided to send military personnel into Libya to assist a rebellion against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Obama initiated this military operation without congressional approval, and without a declaration of war, and then stated he was not required to do so because it was "Kinetic Military Action."
So the question is, is it constitutional for a President, be it Bush, or Obama, to wage war without a declaration of war from Congress?
In the case of both Presidents, they were well within their authority to wage war. I am not saying the decisions were good decisions, or bad decisions. I am just saying that they were well within their constitutional authority to wage war, even if they did not consult Congress.
I think it is a wise move for the President to discuss any intentions to use the military with his military advisers, and Congress, before taking any military action of any kind. However, regardless of the wisdom of the decisions, the Commander in Chief can indeed constitutionally wage war without a declaration of war, and even without conferring with Congress before making the decision.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese says on the subject that the President has the sole power to wage war under the Constitution.
“Protecting the nation requires a unity of purpose and faculty, and it cannot be devolved to a committee or Congress,” he explains.
The President has the authority to wage war, Meese went on to explain, because in times of crisis, no time should be wasted in legislative debate and maneuver. Thus, “the Constitution place[s] paramount authority for national security in a single executive.”
Under the Articles of Confederation, which was "the constitution before the constitution," Congress had the sole power to wage war. The executive, under the Articles, had little power as it was, and in the case of war, had no say in the matter whatsoever.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the founders were searching for a more balanced approach to the question of war. Congress, being populated by representatives of the States, were often in their districts. Unlike the politicians of today, the representatives were statesmen who spent more time at home than in Washington. If Congress had the sole power to wage war, the time it would take to get the message to the Congressman, and then for that Congressman to travel back to Washington, would be far too long when faced with the need for a quick decision regarding the issue of war.
On August 17, 1787, the delegates debated heavily over war powers. The fear was that by giving the President the sole power to wage war a tyrannical president would use those powers in an abusive manner. To give Congress the sole power of waging war was inefficient, and had proven to be a poor decision under the Articles of Confederation.
A compromise was needed. The founders needed to create both an efficient system, yet one that used limiting principles, and a system of checks and balances, to protect the nation from a potentially tyrannical executive.
The power to wage war was granted to the President, and the power to declare war was vested in the Congress. The President, as a result of those debates, was granted the power to wage war whenever and wherever he deemed necessary. However, that war could only be formally declared by Congress. If Congress disagreed with the President's decision to wage war, we are reminded that the Congress has the power of the purse strings, and has the power to deny the President the funding to wage war. So, though the President has the power to wage war as he believes is necessary, that power is checked by the Congressional power of being able to defund the war.
If a President continues to wage war, even after congressional attempts to cut off funding, the Congress also has the power to impeach the President as well.
The decision to wage war often demands immediate action. In such a case, only the President has the ability to quickly step in and order the troops into battle to protect the national interest.
An added point is that both Barbary Wars, waged by Presidents Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, were undeclared wars. If the President must wait for a declaration of war in order to wage war, then that would be to suggest that Thomas Jefferson, and the father of the Constitution James Madison, acted unconstitutionally to wage war against the Barbary Pirates. Did Jefferson and Madison go against the Constitution? Or were they waging war as Commander in Chief using the war powers granted by the Constitution?
The answer can be found in the constitutional debates on August 17, 1787.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese says on the subject that the President has the sole power to wage war under the Constitution.
“Protecting the nation requires a unity of purpose and faculty, and it cannot be devolved to a committee or Congress,” he explains.
The President has the authority to wage war, Meese went on to explain, because in times of crisis, no time should be wasted in legislative debate and maneuver. Thus, “the Constitution place[s] paramount authority for national security in a single executive.”
Under the Articles of Confederation, which was "the constitution before the constitution," Congress had the sole power to wage war. The executive, under the Articles, had little power as it was, and in the case of war, had no say in the matter whatsoever.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the founders were searching for a more balanced approach to the question of war. Congress, being populated by representatives of the States, were often in their districts. Unlike the politicians of today, the representatives were statesmen who spent more time at home than in Washington. If Congress had the sole power to wage war, the time it would take to get the message to the Congressman, and then for that Congressman to travel back to Washington, would be far too long when faced with the need for a quick decision regarding the issue of war.
On August 17, 1787, the delegates debated heavily over war powers. The fear was that by giving the President the sole power to wage war a tyrannical president would use those powers in an abusive manner. To give Congress the sole power of waging war was inefficient, and had proven to be a poor decision under the Articles of Confederation.
A compromise was needed. The founders needed to create both an efficient system, yet one that used limiting principles, and a system of checks and balances, to protect the nation from a potentially tyrannical executive.
The power to wage war was granted to the President, and the power to declare war was vested in the Congress. The President, as a result of those debates, was granted the power to wage war whenever and wherever he deemed necessary. However, that war could only be formally declared by Congress. If Congress disagreed with the President's decision to wage war, we are reminded that the Congress has the power of the purse strings, and has the power to deny the President the funding to wage war. So, though the President has the power to wage war as he believes is necessary, that power is checked by the Congressional power of being able to defund the war.
If a President continues to wage war, even after congressional attempts to cut off funding, the Congress also has the power to impeach the President as well.
The decision to wage war often demands immediate action. In such a case, only the President has the ability to quickly step in and order the troops into battle to protect the national interest.
An added point is that both Barbary Wars, waged by Presidents Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, were undeclared wars. If the President must wait for a declaration of war in order to wage war, then that would be to suggest that Thomas Jefferson, and the father of the Constitution James Madison, acted unconstitutionally to wage war against the Barbary Pirates. Did Jefferson and Madison go against the Constitution? Or were they waging war as Commander in Chief using the war powers granted by the Constitution?
The answer can be found in the constitutional debates on August 17, 1787.
Therefore, even though I feel it would be a disastrous decision, Obama can use the military against Syria if he so wishes.
Oh, and as for the argument that the War Powers Act of 1973 places limits, and requires congressional approval, that law is only a piece of legislation, and cannot change the authorities granted by the Constitution. Such changes can only be made by amendment. The War Powers Act, in that sense, is an unconstitutional law.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
2 comments:
This is a recipe for disaster..poor Israel..sigh...
I would venture to state that there is a distinct difference between the president being able to act decisively to defend the country without explicit congressional approval and the president's ability to act offensively without congressional approval. The former makes sense; the latter is terrifying.
Post a Comment