 | abichara (60)
01/18/2007 |  There's no question that the separation of powers between the Congress and the Presidency concerning war-making power has been corrupted significantly by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers indeed made it very clear that the President's power as "commander in chief" has some significant limitations. He is supposed to be something like a supreme military commander who coordinates all our forces in unison. The President has gained war-making power over time as a means to allow him to react to emergencies in a timely way, without having to convene Congress or have a debate, among other reasons. But Congress also has war-making powers as well, and I'll argue that technically they are stronger than the President's power. Only Congress has the power to declare war. The ambiguity arises because some have argued in the past successfully that a state of war could exist before Congress declares it, thus arises the question: can the President himself commit troops abroad without a formal declaration of war? It's a question that's still unresolved and highly controversial. The War Powers Act of 1973 allows the President to introduce the original troop force, BUT only in lieu of a formal declaration of war on the part of Congress. Looking at Article 1 of the Constitution, it's obvious that Congress's war making power is far more significant. They not only have the power to fund a war, but also to declare it and to commit more troops as is fit.
President Bush is seeking to commit 21,500 troops to Iraq for this year, but he really cannot to do at his discretion. If Bush wants to remain true to the Constitution, he has to first go to Congress to ask for the force increase. Congress makes the rules when it comes to war-making powers. The intention of the Founders was to give Congress the power to make political decisions about committing troops, and the President the authority to decide how to use the nation’s military resources to carry out the will of Congress. In this respect, the relationship between the Congress and the Executive exists rather tensely, as they both have some delegated powers, but the President’s war making power emanates from Congress, thus making him accountable to them.
Some have advocated that Congress use the "power of purse" to cut funding for the war as a means to force a final solution to the Iraq situation, but that would be a wrong move, for that will put the troops at an increased risk. The Bush administration will be quick to blame Congress for any disasters that happen overseas, so that isn't the right move. It would be highly irresponsible as well to leave our troops exposed without the proper equipment in enemy territory. The correct move for Congress to make is to simply not allow Bush to escalate the war: they can do this under the Constitution and the War Powers Act. Most members of Congress have come out against the escalation of the war, so much so that its presumable that they can secure a strong enough majority to override Bush's veto if need be. The President is a lame duck, and most Republicans today are less inclined to support him and his policies, many of which have been failures in regard to the War in Iraq. I think that Congress has a mandate from the American people to act on this issue, as over 2/3rd's of the public agree, according to most polls that escalation is the wrong policy. Cutting the war's funding is the wrong policy, on many levels, but restricting the President's war making powers isn't, and is in fact what the Founder's intended for Congress to do in such situations.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Drummond (54)
12/02/2005 | Well, basically I believe the Constitution should be amended that prevents Congress from providing "war authority" to the president. Every war should require a specific declaration of war from congress. The presidency has been given too much power in recent decades.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | GenghisTheHun (168)
12/02/2005 | The checks and balances of the war powers is either broken or was imperfect in the first place. I agree with IJR's comments and I add that Congress must not grant the power to declare war as it has in the two Gulf Wars and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in the Viet Nam era.
The war powers are divided among the power to make war, the power to declare war, and the power to sustain war. The President has the first power and Congress has the latter two.
If Congress would jealously guard its powers, it could restore some of the balance. If the President would make war in violation of Congress' wishes, that is an impeachable offense.
If Congress would only go to war after a declaration, then the system would work. These unconstitutional wars that we fight wear down the constitution. Where are the conservatives who constantly harp about usurpation of constitional powers or the ignoring of constitutional prohibitions? Let's start being consistent!
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
