Riley von Borstel
Prior to reading this debate regarding the right to declare war, I didn’t really have a strong opinion on the subject, so I had to think long and hard about my position after reading the points made by both sides of the argument. After reading this chapter of Debating the Presidency, I would have to say that I agree with the Con side–argued by Bauer–more so than I do with Kassop, who wrote the Pro argument. I think that both Bauer and Kassop made some excellent points, but in the end, Bauer’s reasoning resonated with my way of thinking more. I do not think that the executive branch has usurped the right to declare war from Congress.
One of the arguments made on the Pro side was that declaring war should be something decided by more than one person due to the magnitude of repercussions this decision inevitably will have on society. This is true, yes, but it does not prove that the executive branch has usurped the right to declare war from the legislative branch. Yes, I do think that there have been a handful of presidents that have abused their constitutional right to emergency powers and that the ambiguity of the Constitution allows presidents to justify any action in such a way that it is deemed necessary, but this does not answer the question at hand. In fact, there have been a plethora of instances where Congress took actions to support war efforts initiated by the president, such as passing legislation for funding that continues the conflict. For example, take the Vietnam War: people argued that Congress had been coerced into beginning the conflict, when they were very aware of the fact the plan to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops. A deployment of that magnitude could only mean one thing–full-fledged war. Regardless of whether or not a president decides to deploy troops, Congress can put a stop to it if they do not support the executive’s actions. The legislative branch can do this in a number of ways, such as enactment of legislation holding the executive accountable for actions regarding the use of military force, not declaring war within the allotted sixty day period, or even by impeachment of the president. In short, Congress has many ways to keep war from occurring if they disagree with the actions of the president.
A statement that Bauer made that really resonated with me was that many people on the opposite side of the argument portray Congress has being a helpless victim that had the right to declare war stolen from them, when in reality, the relationship between the two resembles a “complicated dance between the branches”. The Constitutional relationship between the executive and the legislature is complicated and messy, but simultaneously holds officials accountable for their actions and prevents tyranny. Also, I feel that if Congress were truly the passive victim of executive usurpation that the Pro side depicts it as, we surely would have transformed into an autocratic nation by now. Even though the president is regarded as the most powerful official in the United States government, I think that Congress, in some ways, is more so.
You make a great case for the Congress’ as a continued role. However, while I do agree that there are cases where Congress has supported the President, in general I would disagree with your claim that Congress has the power and is not making use of it. While Congress does have the power to stop wars, this is difficult and should not be necessary. The executive branch should not be in constant need of slap on the wrist. The power to declare war is given to Congress for good reason. The Constitution allows that Presidents make act unilaterally in defense of the nation. However, Presidents have normalized preemptive and preventative action as part of this ‘defense’ and have created a loophole that attempts to circumvent the ability of Congress to exercise oversight.
This is a really great summary and you make a strong case! Thanks for posting!
Hi Lillian,
Thanks for your comments; they were super interesting to read. Yes, the process of stopping a war could be difficult and time consuming, but one could argue that this is true for many processes in our government. It should not be necessary, but it is–this is the entire reason that we have checks and balances. I would also argue that the president has the power to quickly deploy troops in order to respond in a situation where an imminent threat is present, and then Congress has the opportunity to pull those troops if they do not think that war is necessary. If the president were not able to do this in a case of emergency and it was only left to Congress, then their lengthy processes would likely leave America vulnerable to mass destruction. I agree with you, yes, that Congress should indeed have this power because that is much too great of a decision for one person to make–but–the question at hand here is “was this power taken away from Congress”. I do not think that it was taken away from them, but the president has taken a more active role in national defense.
Riley,
Good job, this was a well written argument. I do find a couple of flaws in it that I will quickly point out. You said that you did not believe that President’s have unilaterally used the powers of office to declare wars in the past and then added the caveat “Yes, I do think that there have been a handful of presidents that have abused their constitutional right to emergency powers.” I would argue that if even one President violated the constitution by engaging in non-declared military action (Korea, Vietnam) then we are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis. You also argue that the Constitution is vague in this matter. While I will grant you the Constitution can be ambiguous in some areas this was no one of those cases. The Constitution clearly spells out the role of the President as Commander and Chief very clearly. Once congress declares war the President takes command of the operations of the military. It also allows for the President to take command without congressional authorization in cases of defensive actions. Arguments can be made about the founders judgement in this case but it is difficult to argue that these restrictions were not their intent because they are clearly spelled out. Good post, I appreciate the effort and thought you put into it!
Hello Tim,
Thanks for taking the time to respond; you bring up some good points, but I will rebut your claims by stating that we are not in a Constitutional crisis. The founders wrote the Constitution in its ambiguous fashion so the document is able to evolve along with the nation and its leaders. We are not living in the same United States that we were back when the Constitution was written. Evolutions in travel and technology have made threats from other countries even more so of an issue, and we as a country need to be able to react when the time arises. When this happens, our Presidents in recent years have used their Constitutional powers to act in defense whilst giving Congress the opportunity to respond if they feel the President has been mistaken in his actions. I also am not arguing that the powers are not explicitly stated, but I am saying that they are up for interpretation and that this power has not been usurped from Congress. Thanks for your thoughts!