Limiting Presidential War Power – Does Government Work?

In order to create a united front the president and Congress usually work together to handle foreign affairs. However, this is not always the case, especially when it comes to war. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution assigns the president the role of commander in chief. However, Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to declare war. Our textbook goes on to say that the framers intended to give the president the power to handle domestic invasions and violent uprisings against the government, but Congress the power to declare war against other countries. While it seems clear that the law states the president cannot take military action abroad without the approval of Congress, as for all laws, there are loopholes. The War Powers Act passed in 1973 gives the president 90 days after introducing troops into hostile environment to obtain congressional approval. This gives the president a small window to show Congress that military force can achieve their intended goal. While in theory it seems like a good practice of checks and balances, presidents have been taking advantage of their position as commander in chief and have failed to obtain the approval of Congress in recent military action.

According to the NY times article, the presidents failure to obtain congressional approval of war is not a recent occurrence. The issue stems from the actions of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. With each war or conflict it has become increasingly difficult for congress to disprove of military action after troops are already deployed. We saw this with the war in Iraq. President Bush sent troops overseas long before Congress had even considered a declaration of war. President Bush also failed to follow the rules set forth by the UN. In a letter he wrote to congress he stated that further diplomatic efforts would not protect the United States against the threat of Iraq. So as commander in chief he took matters into his own hands. President Bush is not the only recent example.

As tensions increase with North Korea it appear another war may be on the horizon. However, this war would be different than any other war. President Trump would not need to legally have to have congressional approval to use troops in combat against North Korea. The Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 between the US and South Korea commits the two nations to provide aid if either faces an external attack. Although the Korea War ended in July of 1953, the conflict was resolved with an Armistice not a Peace Treaty. As a result, both countries are still technically at war and the US has an obligation to protect South Korea if they are attacked by North Korea.

It seems counterintuitive to me to have all of these laws and regulations to monitor each branch of the government, when in reality each branch does what they want with little oversight. With the current system either failing or being blatantly ignored I am unsure what action could be taken to prevent the continued disregard for the law. It is apparent that action needs to be taken or laws need to be changed to meet the current needs of our country. I question whether it would be best for the president to have ultimate power in all actions related to the war and military or if it really in the best interest of the United States to have congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/sprj.irq.bush/

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

Omar Ibrahim says:

November 26, 2017 at 11:32 pm

While the president may be able to declare war with as you say a “disregard for law”, there is always consequences in a democratic sense. For example, Bush did send troops into Iraq but it did not pay off in terms of the public’s perception of him. Initial public response was positive after the invasion of Iraq, but as seen in http://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx his approval rating continued to drop as the war continued on. Considering the retrospective voting model is most common amongst voters in America, decisions as big as entering war, will be at the forefront on most voters mind, and coupled with the fact of the priming and framing effects of the media could be very costly and risky for an incumbent president. You make a good point that there might be an imbalance between the branches, but there can be a potential balancing effect with the power of public opinion.

Emily Dunbar says:

November 28, 2017 at 9:52 pm

This is a very important aspect of our government and who is in control when it comes to protecting our country in times of war. In Article II, section 2 of the constitution states that the President is Commander in Chief however that does not give them the power to declare war whenever they want or think it is needed. That is why the Founders in Article I, section 8 stated that the President can not declare war without the permission of Congress. This places a check on the President to prevent them from gaining too much power. The fact that Presidents have found loopholes and been getting away with entering into war without Congress’ permission, this needs to be addressed. The whole purpose of our system of check and balances is to prevent one branch from gaining too much power. If the President continues to get around laws that are stated in the Constitution, where does their power stop. If this is not addressed, this could cause issues later on in history. If the President’s power is not balanced, our government could turn into a tyrannical government if we are not careful. This can only occur if the President’s power continues to grow.

Hannah Dunn says:

November 29, 2017 at 8:24 pm

I share your concern that there is little Congress can do to control President Trump’s reaction to North Korean provocations. I wonder if what you label as presidents “taking advantage” of the system can be attributed to the change in public perception of the presidential role with the switch from television to radio. The presidency is now a largely conflated office, having the responsibility both to please the American public and do what is right for it. I think President Trump is concerned with the former, which makes his ability to retaliate against North Korea without congressional approval so alarming. Depending on the course of action he chooses, the American public may suffer as a result of Trump’s search for approval.