War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, WWI, and WWII

[OfTheCross]

These are the only times that Congress has gotten together and actually Declared War.


How do we fix this? How does Congress wrestle their Constitutional duty back and actually take control of the reigns when it comes to our long military engagements?

Why have they allowed Administration after Administration to strong-arm that ability away from them?

[txradioguy]

These are the only times that Congress has gotten together and actually Declared War.


How do we fix this? How does Congress wrestle their Constitutional duty back and actually take control of the reigns when it comes to our long military engagements?

Why have they allowed Administration after Administration to strong-arm that ability away from them?

It's called the War Powers Act. (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)

Congress may not be declaring war...but they are involved in the process.

If you're trying to star an anti-war anti Iraq anti Afghanistan rant...be aware that Congress has continued to authorize the President to keep troops and engage in combat in those countries.

There's nothing for Congress to "wrestle" back.  If they decide they want the troops out...all they have to do is cut off the funding.

[OfTheCross]

It's called the War Powers Act. (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)

Congress may not be declaring war...but they are involved in the process.

If you're trying to star an anti-war anti Iraq anti Afghanistan rant...be aware that Congress has continued to authorize the President to keep troops and engage in combat in those countries.

There's nothing for Congress to "wrestle" back.  If they decide they want the troops out...all they have to do is cut off the funding.

Almost every single congressperson is too scared to do that out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic.

The definition of "Emergency" has to be clarified because an Administration can declare anything an Emergency and we end up with crap like Vietnam and Afghanistan

[txradioguy]

Almost every single congressperson is too scared to do that out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic.

And you know this how?  Oh yeah..I forget...that's just your opinion...nothing factual about it.

The definition of "Emergency" has to be clarified because an Administration can declare anything an Emergency and we end up with crap like Vietnam and Afghanistan

So we shouldn't have gone to Vietnam or Afghanistan?  We should have just let communism run unchecked in SE Asia and not done a damn thing about the Taliban and their part in the 9/11 attacks?

[OfTheCross]

And you know this how?  Oh yeah..I forget...that's just your opinion...nothing factual about it.

So we shouldn't have gone to Vietnam or Afghanistan?  We should have just let communism run unchecked in SE Asia and not done a damn thing about the Taliban and their part in the 9/11 attacks?

I think we should mind our business to the best of our abilities. If we were right to go into Vietnam why don't we go all out at Cuba or China?

That's beside the point, though. What I would like is for us to be more selective about where we engage. I reckon that if Congress were more involved the initial decision, we would be less involved in policing the world

[Wingnut]

Moving to general discussion

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This is a really interesting issue.

A declaration of war seems rather...total.  Essentially, ceding complete authority to the President to fight until the enemy is defeated, and it really can't even be reversed because there is no mechanism to force the President to sign a peace treaty.  Once we're at war, it continues until he decides it's over.  They have the power of the purse, but that's it.

The War Powers Act and other specific resolutions authorizing military activity seem to be a war for Congress to authorizing fighting, but not a blank check.  So they can put limitations in terms of time, theater, who he is permitted to engage, etc., on it.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[txradioguy]

This is a really interesting issue.

A declaration of war seems rather...total.  Essentially, ceding complete authority to the President to fight until the enemy is defeated, and it really can't even be reversed because there is no mechanism to force the President to sign a peace treaty.  Once we're at war, it continues until he decides it's over.  They have the power of the purse, but that's it.

The War Powers Act and other specific resolutions authorizing military activity seem to be a war for Congress to authorizing fighting, but not a blank check.  So they can put limitations in terms of time, theater, who he is permitted to engage, etc., on it.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Not to mention IMHO if todays politicians turn the war over to the Commander in Chief to prosecute until its finality...they have nothing to campaign on every two years.

[txradioguy]

I think we should mind our business to the best of our abilities.

Even if we're attacked?

If we were right to go into Vietnam why don't we go all out at Cuba or China?

We tried and failed in Cuba with a half assed plan that the U.S. backed out of for political reasons and left the people we'd trained sitting ducks.

We did go up against China...you remember something called the Korean War?

That's beside the point, though. What I would like is for us to be more selective about where we engage.

We're pretty damn selective if you look at history.  You make it sound like we go around the world starting wars...that's just not the case.

I reckon that if Congress were more involved the initial decision, we would be less involved in policing the world

Every conflict we've been involved in since this country was founded Congress has been involved in.  Whether an actual declaration of war was approved or they authorized use of force under the War Powers Act...Congress has and continues to be "more involved in the initial decision".

As for your policing remark...that's just antiwar leftist and/or radical Libertarian bullcrap.   It's not even an original thought on your part.

[Absalom]

The watershed event was our entry into the Great War which was none of our damn business!
Prior to that, while we were powerful and rich; we were essentially an insular nation.
That entry altered the focus of our elites and intelligentsia from domestic to international affairs.
The consequences of that change has driven virtually every aspect of governmental policy involving non-domestic matters and we are hardly better off because of that!!!!!

[OfTheCross]

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[The_Reader_David]

One thing that would help would be, perhaps by an explicit reference in a law or joint resolution, to get Congress to remember the precedent set by the great European powers during Napoleon's 100 Days:  they declared war not on France, but on Napoleon and his adherents.  Post-9/11 that precedent would have allowed us to declare war on Al Qaeda, the Daesh, and (relevant this morning) Al Shabab.

[OfTheCross]

One thing that would help would be, perhaps by an explicit reference in a law or joint resolution, to get Congress to remember the precedent set by the great European powers during Napoleon's 100 Days:  they declared war not on France, but on Napoleon and his adherents.  Post-9/11 that precedent would have allowed us to declare war on Al Qaeda, the Daesh, and (relevant this morning) Al Shabab.

Indeed. As it stands now the Executive could probably just expand the War in Terror to whatever new organization pops up without question or input from the Legislature

[txradioguy]

Indeed. As it stands now the Executive could probably just expand the War in Terror to whatever new organization pops up without question or input from the Legislature

No they can't.  It's already been explained to you how it works.  The President can't to anything without Congress.

[OfTheCross]

No they can't.  It's already been explained to you how it works.  The President can't to anything without Congress.

Hmm...can't the President commit troops before getting Congressional approval?

I believe after 1 or 2 months Congress has to certify it, but at that point you're already in the midst of military action.

I'd like it if they got to offer their authorization before the commitment

[txradioguy]

Hmm...can't the President commit troops before getting Congressional approval?

I believe after 1 or 2 months Congress has to certify it, but at that point you're already in the midst of military action.

I'd like it if they got to offer their authorization before the commitment

Every military operation since HW Bush has had prior Congressional approval.

Desert Shield/Storm 1991:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (short title) (Pub.L. 102–1) or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (official title), was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991 authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War.

President George H. W. Bush requested a Congressional joint resolution on January 8, 1991, one week before the January 15, 1991 deadline issued to Iraq specified by the November 29, 1990 United Nations United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. President Bush had deployed over 500,000 U.S. troops without Congressional authorization to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region in the preceding five months in response to Iraq's August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait.


Enduring Freedom 2001:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.


Iraqi Freedom 2003:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, informally known as the Iraq Resolution, is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No. 107-243, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government in what would be known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Congress even authorized use of force in Syria in 2017.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

This joint resolution: (1) authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), successor organizations, and associated forces; and (2) grants specific statutory authorization to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

Such grant of authority includes the authority for the Armed Forces to detain, pending disposition under the law of war, persons who are a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, any successor organization, or any associated force of those organizations.

The President must submit to specified congressional committees a comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS, detailing specified elements.

The President must report to Congress on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted by this resolution, at least every 60 days.

The bill repeals: (1) the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and (2) the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.



This myth of yours that the President can just run around willy nilly getting our troops into harms way without Congressional knowledge or oversight is just plain leftist crap.


I guess the bigger question is...is it ALL Presidents you have a problem with in the exercise of the War Powers Act...or just ones with an (R) by their name?

[OfTheCross]

Every military operation since HW Bush has had prior Congressional approval.

Desert Shield/Storm 1991:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (short title) (Pub.L. 102–1) or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (official title), was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991 authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War.

President George H. W. Bush requested a Congressional joint resolution on January 8, 1991, one week before the January 15, 1991 deadline issued to Iraq specified by the November 29, 1990 United Nations United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. President Bush had deployed over 500,000 U.S. troops without Congressional authorization to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region in the preceding five months in response to Iraq's August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait.


Enduring Freedom 2001:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.


Iraqi Freedom 2003:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, informally known as the Iraq Resolution, is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No. 107-243, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government in what would be known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Congress even authorized use of force in Syria in 2017.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

This joint resolution: (1) authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), successor organizations, and associated forces; and (2) grants specific statutory authorization to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

Such grant of authority includes the authority for the Armed Forces to detain, pending disposition under the law of war, persons who are a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, any successor organization, or any associated force of those organizations.

The President must submit to specified congressional committees a comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS, detailing specified elements.

The President must report to Congress on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted by this resolution, at least every 60 days.

The bill repeals: (1) the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and (2) the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.



This myth of yours that the President can just run around willy nilly getting our troops into harms way without Congressional knowledge or oversight is just plain leftist crap.


I guess the bigger question is...is it ALL Presidents you have a problem with in the exercise of the War Powers Act...or just ones with an (R) by their name?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding...since you seem more knowledgeable on this than I am, What's the difference between Congress declaring War or them Authorizing the use of Force?

To answer your question, what I want is more restraint on use of force. I don't care about parties since I don't subscribe to any.

[txradioguy]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding...since you seem more knowledgeable on this than I am, What's the difference between Congress declaring War or them Authorizing the use of Force?

A declaration of war approved by congress basically says a state of war exists between the U.S. and (insert country).  It gives the President a broad array of powers to prosecute said war as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces...in addition a formal Declaration triggers many standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc.   He also doesn't have to report back to Congress every 2 months or get a renewal of the Declaration.  It's good for as long as the war goes.

So you should really be careful what you wish for...

To answer your question, what I want is more restraint on use of force.

There's too  much restraint on use of force.  To the point it's getting soldiers killed down range when they are in harms way.

IF we had any more restraint we'd be a pacifist nation.  We'd be back to the isolationist days of the early 20th Century.

I don't care about parties since I don't subscribe to any.

Sure you don't.

[OfTheCross]

A declaration of war approved by congress basically says a state of war exists between the U.S. and (insert country).  It gives the President a broad array of powers to prosecute said war as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces...in addition a formal Declaration triggers many standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc.   He also doesn't have to report back to Congress every 2 months or get a renewal of the Declaration.  It's good for as long as the war goes.

So you should really be careful what you wish for...


There's too  much restraint on use of force.  To the point it's getting soldiers killed down range when they are in harms way.

IF we had any more restraint we'd be a pacifist nation.  We'd be back to the isolationist days of the early 20th Century.


Sure you don't.

That's actually something I thought we might get with this President