Often, those who wish to usurp the Constitution argue that the document is vague and open to interpretation. This may very well be the case in some respects, particularly in the protection of citizens’ rights. The framers did not foresee specific populations which would require protections not directly stated in the original document. However, the framers incorporated a language easily read as malleable in those cases. However, the language used when crafting the separation of powers among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches is not vague or lacking in precise meaning, especially when discussing the President’s role as Commander and Chief.
The founding fathers intended for congress and congress alone to have the power to declare war. This was done because they (the founders) understood the gravity of a decision that would impact every level of society and needed to have an opportunity for robust debate among the people’s representatives. This was a direct effort to avoid vesting the power to engage the nation in armed conflict with another nation at the whims of a chief executive. The design of the Constitution was to balance the nation’s powers among the coequal branches of government and avoid the potential for a chief executive to usurp power and bring in a reign of military despotism.
The founding fathers, in their wisdom, also recognized that if the nation were suddenly under attack, the consultation of congress to declare war would make the nation vulnerable to the immediacy of the threat. Thus, they granted the President the ability to assume the role of Commander and Chief in the direct defense of an unexpected offensive move from an enemy. Otherwise, the assumption of the Commander and Chief was only to be used after congress declared war. It was never intended that the President could engage in offensive military action without the consultation of congress.
How did we arrive at the current unconstitutional position of the President’s role in directing military actions he deems “short of” an official declaration of war? As with the changes in the executive branch’s role that occurred within the age of the modern Presidency, they began in stages and usually under the influence of a cataclysmic event. After witnessing the workarounds FDR used to push his war policies, Truman pushed the envelope even further with his unilateral engagement in Korea.
Once a President engages a particular power and is not challenged by the judiciary or congress, it emboldens that President and those that follow to push the envelope even further. Thus, over time presidents throughout the Cold War exercised unconstitutional powers to engage the U.S. military in actions that should have required congressional approval. In later years the horrors of 9/11 witnessed the President expand powers even further under the auspices of his role as Commander and Chief, and incursions into the rights of the citizenry occurred. It is worth noting that while congress authorized military action after 9/11, the language in the authorization act was typically vague and open to interpretation.
When the restraints of Presidential power are written in vague legalese, it is not surprising that the executive branch will interpret those directives in a light that grants them the most power and flexibility. This was not the intention of the founders. The founders understood the tendency for individuals to seek higher levels of power and authority, which is why they strictly limited the role of the President to Commander and Chief. The movement toward increased powers and flexibility in the office has led to decreased freedoms and foreign engagements without consultation of congress. For the United States government to return to a balanced government, the legislature must retake the powers of war from the President.
The separation of powers is one of the most inherent and foundational parts of our government and of the Constitution. This argument fits under this banner. You do a great job of laying out the arguments that make this issue clear. Beyond those arguments, it is intrinsically a higher value that we separate the power to declare war and the power to conduct war. These two separations all the different branches to check unilateral power and gives necessary weight to ‘war.’ This is not a topic to be taken lightly and by making two branches intrinsic in the decision process, the Framers of the Constitution were protecting the Republic as you point out. Thank you for posting!
Tim,
I enjoyed reading your response to the prompt and hearing your thoughts on the subject. I will, however, respectfully disagree with a few of your claims. For instance, you claim that the President cannot engage in offensive war tactics without consulting Congress first, which is true, but it could be argued that due to the ambiguity in the Constitution, any of these actions could be justified as being an act of defense–even if the justification is merely that the President felt that there was a threat of danger. Secondly, I do not think that the President has taken these powers away from Congress; they are still very much able to do so if they see fit. In recent years, much of what the United States has had to do is defensive, rather than offensive, so it would make sense that the President would obtain a greater role in our national defense. Interested to hear your thoughts!
Hey Tim!
I find your argument for how and why the president gained more authority in cases of unilateral action compelling, but believe they miss the mark in actually defending the position that the president usurped the power of the Legislative Branch.
The 20th Century is a far-step away from what the Founder’s envisioned. Wars can now be decided in days, if not hours, and are a far more pressing concern than the process for going to war would have allowed centuries ago. Given the restraints of Congress as a deliberative body, Truman recognized that, as the Chief Executive, he had a duty to act in a way that was swift and decisive in order to protect the nation’s interest both at home and abroad. Congress agreed with him: Truman’s biggest political opponent of the day, Sen. Robert Taft, said that, though he disagreed with the way in which Truman when about it, he believes he made the right decision.
All throughout the process of Executive expansion, Congress has been in lock-step with the president. They recognize the power and resources available only to that office, and therefore allowed for the president to gain several powers in order to help defend the nation’s interests whilst still keeping the final say. This is portrayed well in the War Powers Resolution, in which the legislature allotted the president some concessions so that they may further move into armed conflict, whilst keeping the power to veto or defund the president’s actions themselves. This can hardly be called a usurpation; rather it is a realization that the president is equipped to do a job that no one else can do, and a proclamation that Congress does indeed have the final say
Tim,
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your argument. You state that while the constitution is open for interpretation when it comes to the rights of citizens, but not when it comes to wartime powers. You say that is due to the somewhat ambiguous wording, but that the wording separating the executive and legislature are much more precise and there is not room left for interpretation. Upon reading that, the question that comes to mind is as follows: why are certain areas of the constitution up to interpretation and others not? Clearly, the framers intentionally left vague phrasing to allow the constitution to stand the test of time. I do not believe the framers intended for the president’s role as commander in chief to be set in stone. They were aware that reasonable and complex circumstances would arise and that the executive would need to act appropriately.
Tim,
I do agree with you in that times have changed so much that the Founding Fathers could never have expected such interactions today in the world. That in a matter of hours, we can deliver missiles into the territory of another nation without even leaving our own homes. That we would be controlling drones remotely and initiating combat without threatening any of our own people’s lives. The separation of power is truly needed because that would mean the full might of our arsenal would be able to unleash anytime that there is war called by the President or single body AND deploy them at their own discretion. Keeping military power divided between hard and soft power aspects is a important move and one that has a lasting impact that I would say is a very good thing. This was a wise move by our Founding Fathers that exists to this day and allows us to keep our country from overly reacting in ways that would simply let the individual or group to exploit their power.