-Caveat Lector-
http://writ.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html
----
WHY CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO DECLARE WAR DOES NOT PROVIDE AN
EFFECTIVE CHECK ON THE PRESIDENT
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Wednesday, Mar. 06, 2002
Among the complaints leveled against King George III in the Declaration of
Independence was that he attempted to make "the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil power." The Framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to avoid a
repetition of this evil by making the President, an elected and civilian figure, the
Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
But the Framers did not stop there. Fearful that even an elected President might
overreach, they divided military authority between the Commander in Chief and
Congress. They assigned to Congress the power to declare war, to "make rules
concerning captures on land and water," and--through its taxing and spending
powers- -the ability "[t]o raise and support armies."
In modern times, however, Congress has often been either unable or unwilling to
exercise its constitutional responsibility to act as a check on the President's
warmaking power. Recently, Senate Majority Leader Daschle criticized the
Administration's level of consultation with Congress - only to be met with a strong,
adverse reaction by Republicans. The hostility Daschle faced is only the latest
example of the difficulties members of Congress encounter when they attempt to
check Executive war-making power.
Congressional Actions Short of Declaring War
Congress has not formally declared war since World War II, even though the
intervening years have witnessed substantial U.S. military involvement overseas.
This is not to say, however, that Congress has played no part in the decisions to
commit troops. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorized military action in Vietnam.
Similarly, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq in 1991. And in
September 2001, Congress authorized President Bush "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, or harbored such organizations or persons . . . ."
But in each of these military conflicts, Congress stopped short of declaring war.
Why?
One answer is that formal declarations of war are a relic of the Eighteenth Century.
Modern military conflicts are too fluid, and arise too suddenly, for a declaration of
war
to serve any practical purpose.
Moreover, when Congress authorized military action against the perpetrators of the
September 11 attacks, it did not know their precise identities. And to the extent that
Congress understood al Qaeda to be the main enemy, a question arises as to
whether it can declare war on an entity other than a state.
This explanation does not explain Congress's failure to declare war in other recent
military conflicts, however, where there were clearly identifiable state enemies: Iraq
in
the Persian Gulf, and Yugoslavia in Kosovo. Yet in neither case did Congress
declare war.
Indeed, in the Kosovo conflict, Congress did not even formally authorize the use of
military force. Although the Senate passed a resolution authorizing air attacks, that
resolution failed in the House of Representatives. But just over a week later, the
House passed a bill funding the war anyway.
The Congressional Dilemma and Response
Congress's somewhat inconsistent actions in the Kosovo conflict illustrate the
difficulty it often faces when the President uses military force. Even if Congress
would be inclined against military action, once troops are in the field under enemy
fire, Congress can only block such action at the cost of endangering those troops
and potentially undermining the national interest. Yet Congress is virtually powerless
to prevent the President from using military force in the first place.
It has long been recognized that, even absent a formal declaration of war, the
President may, on his own authority, use military force to carry out the
Congressionally delegated power to "suppress insurrections and repel invasions."
Thus, for example, in The Prize Cases the Supreme Court upheld President
Lincoln's Civil War blockade of southern ports. And no one doubts that in the event
of an actual attack on the United States, the President can and should use military
force even if there is insufficient time to seek Congressional approval.
How long does an emergency response last? In 1973, Congress adopted the War
Powers Resolution in an effort to strengthen its hand vis-a-vis the President. The
Resolution was enacted in response to the perception that U.S. military involvement
in Vietnam escalated without proper Congressional approval.
The War Powers Resolution authorizes Presidential use of force only in a narrow
range of circumstances. Moreover, it obliges the President to report to Congress
within 48 hours of deploying troops, and to obtain specific Congressional approval for
continued deployment within sixty days.
The Relative Ineffectiveness of the War Powers Resolution
Since its adoption, the War Powers Resolution has come under criticism. Several
Presidents have voiced the view that the Resolution is invalid insofar as it purports
to
limit a power given to the Commander in Chief by the Constitution.
>From the other side, critics who believe that Congress should have more effective
checks on Presidential warmaking powers have observed that the War Powers
Resolution does little to accomplish this goal. Despite the Resolution's passage, the
very same factors that made Congress reluctant to oppose Presidential warmaking
before the adoption of the War Powers Resolution continue to operate.
After troops are in the field--whether formally authorized by Congress or not--it can
appear unpatriotic to call for the abandonment of their mission. Thus, the formal
need for Congressional approval is superseded by the political impossibility of
Congress's withholding that approval once the President has unilaterally committed
troops. Thus, in practice, despite the Framers' best efforts, the dice are loaded
against a substantial Congressional role in supervising the conduct of war.
Intense fighting in the last several days suggests that Senator Daschle was right
when he remarked that the military action in Afghanistan has not yet "broken the
back of Al Qaeda." But whether he is right or wrong is not the point. Given the
political risks, it is surprising that a Congressional leader would seek greater
involvement in war matters. Accordingly, rather than having his patriotism
questioned, Daschle should be commended for taking his constitutional obligation
seriously.
Michael C. Dorf is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University.
Company | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer
Copyright � 1994-2001 FindLaw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
