Congress Can Limit President's War Powers (must read)

[cynatnite]

But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” By “declare war,” the Constitution’s framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun. In the 18th century, war declarations were often limited in scope — European powers might fight a naval battle in the Americas, for example, but not battle on their own continent. In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war’s scope and duration.

The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

In the early days of the republic, the Supreme Court made clear that Congress could limit the president’s war powers — notably in the Flying Fish case. In 1799, during the “Quasi War,” the undeclared sea war between the United States and France, Congress authorized President John Adams to clamp down on trade between the two nations by stopping ships headed to French ports. But Adams went further, ordering commanders to stop ships that were sailing to or from a French port.

When the Flying Fish was seized while sailing from a French port — something Congress had not authorized — the ship’s owner sued. The Supreme Court decided in his favor, ruling that the president had no right to issue the order he did. John Marshall, the nation’s greatest chief justice, declared that even in a time of hostilities, a president’s decision to act militarily beyond what Congress had authorized was “unlawful.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/opinion/29mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[mike_c]

1. personally, I would LOVE to find out how the supreme court...

...would deal with this issue. The separation of powers doctrine is apparently pierced by the authority of the president as commander-in-chief, but I think there is a lot of merit in the argument that the authors of the Constitution intended that office to be synonymous with "top general" or something similar. In other words, the office of commander-in-chief should not have the authority to use the military without a congressional authorization of war that describes the limits that the president must be constrained by, but that once Congress has determined the need to use military force, the president functions as the supreme commander.

Generals do not have the authority to declare war, only the command authority to determine how it is fought, and this is the role of the "commander-in-chief"-- he is the top general.

[lvx35]

3. Totally true.

Congress alone has the power to declare war. The war powers act of 1973 is unconstitutional. EVERYBODY needs to study the constitution on this, and know our founding fathers and their vision.

[myrna minx]

2. K&R. n/t

[oldtimecanuk]

4. The problem is folks, nothing has meant anything...

to these Administration folks to date. If Bush decides to attack Iran, I doubt very much that he cares what Gongress or anyone says about it. We have'nt seen him have any concern todate, so I would'nt be holding my breath for him to care in the future.

ww

[rpgamerd00d]

5. k&r

[cynatnite]

6. kicking n/t

[Edweird]

7. So this makes congress foot dragging look even worse.

[fooj]

8. Stop the treasonous, rat bastard NOW!