The Importance of Military Security to Our National Security

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

Decisions that presidents had made previously with little congressional participation. Under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Congress is granted responsibility for caring out their powers as well as all other powers in the Constitution. This gives them the constitutional right to establish certain procedural implements for war proceedings. Thus, the central purpose of the War Powers Resolutions to restrain the president from unilaterally deploying U.S. Armed Forces. Constant with this intent, legislation imposed the president to report and consult with congress. More notably, it provides congressional supervision by permitting congress to force troop

Throughout the history of the United States, the President has bypassed the Congress and engaged in warring actions. All cited Emergency Action as the qualifying reason. Some, after the fact asked congress for a declaration of war, others have not. Regardless, the Chief Executives seemed to have found that a formal declaration is not required whenever it would benefit them.

The War Powers Act limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The War Powers Act is also known as The War Powers Resolution. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the United States involved in hostilities. It prohibits the President from waging war beyond 60 days without the Congressional approval (MILNET: The War Powers Act of 1973). Authorization can be made in many forms such as a temporary waiver of the Act or via a Declaration of War (MILNET: The War Powers Act of 1973).

The Constitution is supposed to divide war powers between the president and Congress, but in today’s society that has not always been the case. We live in a country with competing views, but our Constitution was created through disagreement. While the Constitution is a source of cherished and unifying political ideas, it can provoke some of the most intense quarrels because of its principles and protections. It is also debated and applied to present circumstances daily. To get back to the presidential power argument, President Barack Obama sent United States military into combat without the consent from Congress. “As a presidential candidate in 2007, Senator Obama stated, “The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation” (Yoo). President Barack Obama announced four years later, that he was acting on his constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations as the commander in chief/chief executive by the intervention with Libya. Throughout our history, neither presidents nor Congress have carried out the beliefs that the constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S can allow for the military to act. “We have forced abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: The War of 1812, the

Congress passed the War Powers Act that acknowledges the presidential right to take limited military action before receiving congressional approval, but requires him to file a formal report with Congress within forty-eight hours of initiating hostilities. The use of military action is limited to sixty days without congressional approval. An additional thirty days can be granted if it is necessary to withdraw the troops.

As the decided cases make clear, focusing mainly on mere historical acquiescence by Congress when examining the President 's exercise of a particular power does not by itself prove that Congress lacks the authority to limit the exercise of that power when it gathers the courage and wisdom to do so. Justice Jackson 's Steel Seizure concurrence carried the warning that "only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers” and that warning presupposes what is argued here: that Congress, if it so chooses, can regain power lost to the executive branch through its own course of action. If the Congress does not act when conditions demand action, then the President will exercise power because power must be exercised. But the fact that the President exercises a power when Congress does not, does not render that power as "inherent" in the executive or even make it remotely valid. At best, the power is "inherent" in the overall government of the United States of America. Therefore, the argument that Presidents have "always" controlled troops without congressional interference proves no more than perhaps its own premise: that Presidents have always done this. In particular, that historical conclusion makes no statement at all about congressional authority to alter that long-standing state of affairs. Failure to see this crucial distinction accounts for occasional citation to the line of cases beginning with United States v. Midwest Oil Co., as authority for the

Unilateral Presidential action is the ability to act, without the consent of Congress. This ability was not original intended by the framers of the Constitution however, over time the Execute Branch stated to outgrow the reaches of the Legislative Branch. One instance in which lead to this type of actions by presidents was of Lincoln’s actions to save the Union. Lincoln acted without the consent of Congress due to Congress being out of session. Lincoln later would explain his actions to Congress as the Commander and Chief of the United States that he had the right to act in a state of emergency or a crisis. One reason to his actions was Article 2 Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several states, when called into actual service of the United States.”

LBJ also set a precedent for sidelining Congress in the decision about whether to go to war—a decision that the Constitution explicitly gave to the legislature, not the president. In 1973, Congress tried to hit back with the War Powers Resolution, written to reassert its constitutional prerogative. But, as Maddow shows, that idea has been kicked around by every president from Ronald Reagan (Grenada) to Bill Clinton (the Balkans) to the Georges Bush (Saddam) to Barack Obama (Libya). Congress doesn’t declare war, and the president sends the troops anyway.

The U.S. Constitution provides power to the President and Congress to develop and enact national security policy (Ulrich, 1). As such our civilian leaders have the right and responsibility to maintain oversight of the military. Two civil-military relations theories, Normal and Clausewitzian, offer competing views. The Normal theory suggests officers are professionals and interference from civilian leaders is inappropriate (Cohen, 4). The Clausewitzian theory contends the statesman may inject himself in any aspect of military strategy since

The War Powers Resolution is considered a law created by the government to check that the president’s power is in line and he doesn’t authorize any armed conflict without the agreement of the congress. The law was passed by the Congress on November 7, 1973 and became widely used to prevent unneeded conflict. This resolution was considered a way to prevent future wars but the president’s found the act offensive as an undermining of their authority. There are many things that the president can’t do without the congress's consent. First is that the president and the congress have to both has the same idealistic views when impacting hostiles with armed forces. Next is that congress has the right to move armed forces into enemy territory where as

became concerned with the “abuse” of this power, particularly those executed by former Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon (288). This concern emerged during the Vietnam and Korean wars when the United States was in great conflict with the nations without a formal Declaration of War by Congress. In an effort to limit the President’s power, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution which established guidelines for the executive during times of conflict. The Resolution requires the President to alert Congress of his intentions to commit forces. However, the President must withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress declares war, grants special authorization, extends the 60 day period, or is unable to physically meet as a result of an armed attack against the United States (288). The President is provided the power to extend the 60 day period if he determines that doing so is necessary for the safety and

Congress and the president use their powers to check and balance each other. One power of Congress is the ability to declare war. However, Congress generally gives the president control during war time. Because of this, the president is able to acquire more power over the war while Congress can do little if they have already given their approval. After the Vietnam War, in which Presidents Johnson and Nixon continued to wage despite a divided Congress[i]; they decided that the Constitution did not warrant the president to have the power to declare war, so they passed the War

“Congress has a portion of the war power because the members of Congress come from the several states and have close ties to all the people. The idea was that by splitting up the war power, the country would not go to war unless both constituencies – meaning the whole country – supported war.”("Understanding the Constitution of the United States"). Only way for a war to happen is if congress deems it reasonable, subordinating the executive branch.

The United States issued the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. It said that Congress empowered the President, as Command in Chief, "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the U.S. and to prevent further aggression." Most importantly, the memorandum gave the President the permission to retaliate North Vietnam's threats to international peace, as the attacks were reason enough for further American involvement in Vietnam, as well as an escalation of military forces.