Only Congress has the Authority to declare war, correct?

[northstar]

So, if that's true, why do I feel very uncomfortable when I read this:

Kerry explained that he believes a president should have the "authority" to go to war, and he voted accordingly. But he insisted that Bush subsequently misused the authority by rushing headlong into combat based on faulty intelligence about Saddam's weapons arsenal.

I don't want to get flamed, and I certainly don't want to see *'s puss around for another four years, but I'm feeling very 'concerned'. (It's just that I love our Constitution).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/186677_thomas18.html

edited to add link

[rwenos]

1. Presidential Authority to Make War

On the one hand, only Congress can declare war. On the other hand, the President is Commander in Chief. It's a Constitutional tension -- the last Congressional declaration of war was on Dec. 8, 1941. Since then, each major deployment has been accompanied by a Congressional resolution, but no "declaration of war." The military moves on orders from the President.

Near as I can tell, it was meant by the Framers to be a tension. The President can send in the troops by Executive Order; but Congress has to appropriate the money. Only Congress can declare war; but the President is Commander in Chief, and can clearly order the troops about with great latitude.

The Court has stayed out of this power struggle, by the way. And the War Powers Act, although never really tested, is probably unconstitutional.

At least that's the way I remember it from 2d year Con Law.

[Yupster]

7. Nah, the framers gave the power to the Congress

They had the power to fund the army and declare war.

The president had the power to send in the troops, but what troops?

There really wasn't any standing army to speak of, and there was no intention that there would ever be one.

The armed power of the nation rested with the militias, which again the founders gave the power to call forth the militias to the congress. To have a major military move, congress would have to call forth the militias and then appropriate money to fund them.

I think the intent of the founders was pretty clear.

[kiahzero]

2. Kind of

Congress has the power to "declare war." But this ability doesn't give the institution a whole lot of real power, because the President has the power to deploy troops. So, in other words, Congress can put the country to war, but can't keep the country in peace.

The IWR did not defer the ability to declare war to the President. All the resolution did was satisfy the requirements of the War Powers Act, so if troops were deployed, they could stay deployed. Lacking this authorization 60 days after troops were deployed, they would have to return. It's important to note that we had already toppled the government of Iraq within 60 days - at that point, it would have been extremely shortsighted to withdraw the troops, since it would almost certainly guarantee that Iraq would turn into a failed state.

[K-W]

3. Its not black and white.

that provision is from a time when there was a certain code of conduct for war internationally. Where nations first agreed to go to war with declarations, then sent armies at each other.

I wouldnt get too caught up on it. I think the IWR could easily be considered constitutional.

[DaveSZ]

4. Agreed

nt

[whistle]

5. Correct, unless congress decides to give that authority away....

...which they did following 9/11. Jerks!

[mzmolly]

6. I agree, but the thinking on Kerry's part was that authority was leverage

for inspections from what I understand?

Helen Thomas is correct though. :(

I wish he'd give a clarification to this effect:

I wanted to give the President the authority to pursue inspections and a PEACEFUL resolution but he chose WAR, and I disagree with his decision to go to war. But, I really think he is afraid to be critical when troops are on the ground?

I wish HT were an advisor for the Kerry camp, she's brilliant.

[northstar]

8. From what I am reading of the responses,

I sounds like there is a vilification of the fact that the framers of the Constitution (because of their sense that checks/balances would impede/slow/stop corruption and misuse) wanted to the ability to 'deploy troops' and then 'fund them' to come from different branches.

I agree with Post #5 - that Congress 'gave their authority away' - without a doubt, that was a horrendous day!

Beyond that, I am concerned about another 'turn' I see now....it's something from a psychology class I am taking.

We're losing, ladies and gentlemen. What I am learning (good thing I wasn't a child of the era who was 'promised not to be left behind') is that:

"Most people don't bother objecting to minor issues unless they're approaching a major decision/change". Major changes cause anxiety and pain (they make us say "ouch")...the WAY we say 'ouch' is to object to the lil peanuts/the details...but for the people applying the pressure for change - they view our objections as "success is within their grasp"....the lemmings are almost there. The lemmings will compromise and the hawks will not...they'll only make it look that way.

[K-W]

9. No thats not really it at all.

The framers lived in a different time. One where wars generally had declarations for one. War was very ceremoneolized. It was a sport between kings and nations. That kind of thing basically ended in WW1, when countries realized that technology would not allow them to enter wars lightly anymore.

Congress didnt give anything away. HAve you even read the IWR? It didnt say "the president can do whatever he wants whenever he wants" It gave a specific set of circumstances where war would be allowed. It was perfectly in line with the constitution.

The constitution doesnt fit our reality exactly, of course, and I dont see any reasonable interpretation that doesnt make the IWR perfectly constitutional. There have been breaches of this part of the constitutionality. The War Powers Act, I think it was called, or something like that. And even that wasnt too far from the constitution.

Meanwhile alot of our government doesnt look exactly like the constitution, including many liberal things. It is a living document. A structure that we build a government off of.

[northstar]

10. Your assertion that

It was a sport between kings and nations.

is vulgar and just plain wrong! People always had legitimate reasons for fighting and 'hoping/fighting for something better'....sure, their emotions were used to get them to logically justify their actions, but the NEED was there. People always fight because they NEED things they aren't getting!

And, NO, I haven't read the IWR. If you provide a link I promise to educate myself.

[northstar]

15. So, will someone provide a link?

somebody, anybody??? :shrug:

[DebJ]

16. I agree that it was a 'sport'. The rich guys got richer and

the poor guys died. I just read this in a book somewhere, too....maybe it was Byrd's book Losing America but I'm not sure...

[no_hypocrisy]

13. The REAL reason Congress ceded its authority "to go to war": to avoid

taking responsibility for the consequences of a disasterous military action. Let * take the heat and we can still be re-elected. Talk about finally finding something bipartison these two groups of cowards could agree on.

[0rganism]

11. You'd be surprised. Check out the War Powers Resolution of 1973

According to this law, passed over President Nixon's veto with 2/3 vote in each house, a President can commit troops but must consult with Congress (1) at the start of hostilities and (2) regularly thereafter, and (3) retract troop deployments if Congress has not declared war or otherwised authorized the executive use of force within 60 days.

Before that, the Prez could pretty much send the military whereever, as long as he called it a police action.

[notbush]

12. This whole thread ignors the truth.

Only congress can declare war......we haven't had a declared war since WW2....but we've had alot of wars.
Congress, in control by Democrats or Republicans, has not had the balls to deal with a declared war for almost 50 years.
Bitch and moan ...Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Panama,Granada,Bosnia,Balkins.....................
Congress tomorrow could get us home frome Iraq. STOP THE FUNDING!!!!!!
Ain't gonna happen.

[theboss]

14. We haven't declared war on anyone since 1941

It's rather ridiculous.