UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

It’s just a game and we’re winning. USA! USA!

(no message)

If you were in Congress now, would you vote to halt the military assistance being given to the Iranian people?

(no message)

(no message)

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541

The War Powers Act is highly problematic, as is the power to declare war...as you know. The Constitution specifically grants that power to Congress, not the President. But the President is the Commander in Chief. Congress cannot pass a law restricting power granted to the President by the Constitution. It can restrict the President's use of Congressional powers delegated to the President by Congress. But, a declaration of war does not seem to be (in fact, never did seem to be) required to commit troops to action. That power seems to be part of the President's power as Commander in Chief. The declaration of war seems to be a further authorization to the President when passed, not a limiter of the President when it has not been passed...if it is a limiter, then the line of limitation is not clear, since entire countries have been defeated and occupied without a declaration of war.

From the earliest of days of the Constitutional Republic, even under George Washington, the president has committed US troops and naval forces to military action without consulting Congress. And, in recent history, both Democrats and Republicans have done so without declarations / votes in Congress...and both parties have done it to effect regime change. You can try to limit that ability now, but you are fighting 250 years of historical precedent, and if you didn't protest members of your own party doing it, but you protest Trump doing it now, you appear to just be partisan, not a protector of the Constitution. I'm no expert in this area, but we probably need an Article V Amendment to overcome that much historical precedent.

In an ideal world, we would only fight after a vote by Congress (only done 5 times previously, the last one in 1941). Just like in an ideal world, we would only impose tariffs by act of Congress, and that power would not be delegated by Congress to the President. But, Congress has worked very hard over the years to transform itself from a governing body to an insider trading cartel. Congress hates passing laws of any kind...even a budget, because they may lose their seat in the insider trading cartel for something as silly as voting for a law. And when they do pass laws, they even sometimes encourage the population to ignore those laws rather than repeal them (e.g., immigration laws). Moreover, things no longer move at the geopolitical speeds of 1800, or 1910, or even 1980. I wouldn't be surprised if an Article V Amendment passed today started by making it clearer that the President explicitly has (or will have) a greater portion of the war power, given the self-imposed impotence of Congress and the need for quick action in the modern era.