Congress, The Presidency, and War Power

The textbook details the constant push and pull dynamic between presidents and Congress. The push and pull dynamic is most important in relation to foreign policy and the declaration of war. The president may be commander in chief of the armed forces, but only Congress can make the declaration of war. Congress may declare war, but the president is commander in chief to allow for decisive action in wartime. The founders gave Congress this important responsibility to prevent the executive branch from starting ill advised wars without congressional input or dissent. The history of the United States in war is marked by the push and pull between the president and Congress. The wide latitude given to the Johnson Administration in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was replaced by the War Powers Act in response to the events in Vietnam. This dynamic holds true today in the post 9/11 era and the Global War on Terror. In my opinion, Congress has failed asserts its authority over war declarations and the admirable goal of the War on Terror caused Congress to give the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations too much authority without sufficient oversight.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. The resolution gave the President authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001” In the sixteen years since 9/11, AUMF has been used to justify operations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. It was also cited by the Supreme Courts as the legal justification for the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The broad discretion granted to the executive branch has prevent Congress from fulfilling their constitutionally designed oversight role over the executive branch. When multiple Senators give interviews stating that, “they were unaware that the United States had troops in Niger, it is evidence that Congress has failed to assert its authority over war and the declaration thereof. President Obama ended up bombing more countries during his administration compared to President Bush. If Congress, the elected representatives of the people, fail to hold the executive branch accountable through sufficient oversight, more power will be vested in the president, causing the system of checks and balances to be thrown out of order. It concerning that a law passed sixteen years ago was interpreted in ways that writers did not expect. The AUMF has been used to justify operations in Georgia, The Philippines, and Djibouti. A resolution meant to justify operations in Afghanistan has been used for operations in Asia and Africa. Congress never imagined that the AUMF would be used for operations in Asia and that the AUMF would still be used sixteen years later without any sufficient changes.

Thankfully, recent actions have indicated Congress is starting to reassert itself in national security affairs. An amendment to repeal the AUMF recently passed the House Appropriations Committee, despite the objections of Congressional leaders. Even though the repeal effort was not sent to the floor, it sent a signal that Congress is no longer willing to give the executive branch a blank check. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held hearings on the matter as well. These are encouraging signs that Congress is more willing to exact oversight on the president’s power through the AUMF. Both actions have been bipartisan, which indicates that both parties view debating the impact of the AUMF is a meaningful use of their time. If the War on Terror is going to continue for the near future, Congress should hold the executive branch accountable for their actions. With sufficient congressional oversight, the president will discover that little to no institutional constraints exist to limit presidential power.

Margaret Castelli says:

November 27, 2017 at 2:22 pm

Your post does a great job of covering the issues surrounding the current president’s power in relation to going to war. Modern Americans hardly think twice about the fact that the power to go to and declare war lies solely with Congress. We understand and know that the president is the commander of the United States Army, and this leads to the acceptance that the president can send his country to war without consulting other branches.
Your discussion of the post-9/11 act “The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” is extremely important in the discussion of this issue. Though presidents have been slowly gaining more and more power in relation to the military and declaring war (think President Truman and the atomic bombs), this piece of legislation really acts as the first official passing of this power of war to the president. The framers left this power to declare war with Congress, and it was for good reason, and this should check should not be changed or infringed upon.

Lauren Toth says:

November 28, 2017 at 1:20 pm

As you have pointed out, when it comes to foreign affairs there are many loopholes to jump through. Presidents are able to deploy military units without the approval of congress. The question resides, is congress just turning a blind eye to the matter or have presidents found loophole that are untouchable by congress alone. Currently there are troops deployed in 177 at over 800 overseas bases. Foreign war especially terrorism is a hot topic in politics but only in times that a recent tragic event has occurred. 9/11 was the largest terror attack on American Soil caused congress to react to attempt to create protective measures for the American people in efforts to prevent future events. Once again congress has to react to an event which is the presidents deploying troops to areas that they did not officially approve. Congress was given the power to hold control over where the president sends troops but have only taken a reactionary plan to the matters. If they were truly concerned of the president abusing the loophole, actions should have been taken to end it. Instead as pointed out, congress is slowly trying to end AUMF but no real appeal has been brought to the floor. Congress has the power to stop this but has yet to. They take the reactionary approach when it comes to deploying troops to “protect” Americans. It can be argued that previous presidents (Obama, Bush) took the precautionary track and used this loophole to prevent such events happening again by solving the problems over seas. In a sense if congress didn’t approve of the precautionary plan, by the powers given by the constitution they could put an end to the temporary power the presidents believe they have.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/