In the Constitution, the founders attempted to enumerate and assign powers to different branches of government in order to ensure the separation of power and the ability for one branch to check another. One of the areas that the Constitution is very clear to separate is the power to declare war versus the power to conduct war. This measure was taken with good reason. However, over the decades Presidential power expansion, public fear have allowed for the President to usurp war powers from Congress, consolidating these powers in the Executive branch.
Article II of the Constitution gives the President control over foreign policy. Under this, the President is the Commander in Chief and given the power to direct the military in any engagement. But, the founders intended this to mean that the President could act as a first General when Congress declared war, or act flexibly if the Union was under attack. That is not how this Article has been interpreted. Under the overarching brand of National Security, Presidents have expanded their power to engage in foreign conflict without the approval of Congress. The existence of the War Powers Resolution confirms this.
The War Powers Resolution was established in order to close loopholes that the Executive Branch had used to justify armed conflict without the approval of Congress. Throughout history there are examples of when Presidents have begun conflict without Congress declaring war, or have gone behind the direction of Congress. President Truman’s deployment of troops into Korea is an example of this. This action was taken under the banner of national security, as a preventative measure. But at the end of the day, preventative wars, are still offensive wars which must have the approval of Congress! A different example in the ways that the President bypasses Congress when it comes to war powers is the Iran Contra affair. President Reagan’s administration facilitated arms dealing in Iran to fund Contras activity in Nicaragua when Congress attempted to check the power of the Executive by cutting off funding. This was within the power of Congress as the conflict in Nicaragua was not approved by Congress.
The Constituion, is vague and ambiguous. There are places where it must be interpreted by higher courts to fit with the 21st century. But it is very clear in the separation of powers when it comes to who carries out war and who may declare war. Various Presidents have expanded powers, pushed limits and normalized unconstitutional war powers. However, there is no amendment that addresses this as of yet. Congress, and Congress alone has the power to declare war. The instances where the president has acted unilaterally in offensive or “preventative” conflict, are a usurpation of Congress’ power to declare war.
Lillian,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your arguments from the other side, but I do have some points that I want to make in contrast with your claims. I think a good place to start would be by stating that the definition of usurpation is “to take away from, either illegally or by force”. Yes, you are correct in stating that this clause in the Constitution does allocate these powers to Congress, but they still have these powers–they were not forcefully taken away from Congress by the President forcefully. Also, the Constitution is written so ambiguously–and purposely, at that–that one could argue that the President is merely exercising his rights to use emergency powers. You bring this up, but also say that it is very clear who has what power, but I would argue that not really anything in the Constitution is black and white. That is why we have the Supreme Court–to argue what is written in the Constitution. As time has gone by and the presidency has evolved, the President has definitely taken more of an active role in things, such as national defense, but because of the checks and balances that were put into place. Nice job!
Lillian,
I agree that Presidents have traditionally pushed the envelope when it comes to ordering the armed forces into action. This has led continuously to undeclared wars in regions with dubious connections to the nations national security. Korea and Vietnam both proxy wars within the greater cold war cost thousands of lives and had no authentic constitutional authorization. The more often the executive branch is allowed the push the envelope the greater they will extend their reach. No government agency intentionally attempts to limit their own authority unless they are checked by a coequal branch. Great argument!
Thanks,
Tim F
Hi Lilian!
Though I believe you make a good case for how the presidency has evolved as an institution from its inception, I don’t believe you adequately demonstrate the idea that the president has usurped this power from Congress. In fact, many of the points you make or more in favor of the idea that Congress itself ceded specific powers to the president so it could better wage war whilst still keeping the strongest, overarching power to declare war for itself.
You mention the War Powers Resolution as a way that Congress tried to take back its power. What you fail to mention, however, is that the War Powers Resolution itself allotted to the president many abilities that had previously been held in the domain of Congress, allowing the Executive to act upon some form of engagement as long they keep Congress informed and allow Congress to weigh in on the decision after 60 days. This was a voluntary secession to the executive branch so that the president, now inundated in a Nuclear Age where wars could be waged in a matter of minutes, can effectively perform their job to preserve, protect, and defend the United States as Commander-in-Chief. As displayed, Congress still has the final say in the matter, as you express in your example of the Iran-Contra Scandal, where they oversaw the president’s actions, deemed them incorrect and put a stop to them. Congress is privy to the fact that the changing, ever-accelerating world requires more leeway to the Executive in order to respond the crises and extenuating circumstances, and thus cannot be said to have been “usurped.”