Congress should enact a No Presidential Wars statute:
Congress should enact a "No Presidential Wars" statute that defines "Presidential wars;" declares them contrary to the U.S. Constitution's Declare War Clause; and, makes presidential wars prospectively impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors justifying removal from office Ref. Source 2l.
I agree with this article. I don't think the President should have the power to declare war of any scale. I think it is a purely political move to try to boost their ratings for reelection, but does not serve the people. I also know that the constitution specifically limits declaring war to the legislative branch. I don't know how we are currently getting around this, but I think it should be an impeachable crime so that presidents will stop doing it. However I also don't think that is going to happen under President Trump. He is more likely to start a war than limit his own power. He has already declared war against 'Islamic extremist'. I am scared for what this will mean for America.
The president is legally capable of initiating an offensive without an actual declaration of war. He must simply get congress to approve his act of war within ninety days or cease those efforts.
The idea is that the commander of our forces should be capable of responding to a serious threat immediately, rather than waiting around for councilmen to deliberate. A precaution I approve of in principle.
Unfortunately, not only is that not how the War Powers Act been used lately, both Bush and Obama set a precedent of ignoring Congress' lack of approval for their personal wars. Somehow I don't think Trump will be more prudent and humble than them.
Yes, they never declare war anymore. It's a loophole around it. I don't know how we invaded Iraq without a declaration of war. I think there should have been one. It lets congress debate it and then vote on it. It pulls both parties together because they both voted and committed to the action.
I agree that the president should have the ability to respond to attacks against us quickly, but I don't know how we are getting around this 90 day limitation with our current wars. The ability of the president to sustain troops overseas in an offensive (Not as in to offend people, but as in aggressive) posture is unacceptable.
I'm so glad I found this site. I absolutely love some of the discussions going on here. How have the last few Presidents managed to get around the War Powers Act? It was enacted over a presidential veto. It was enacted because of the way we became embroiled in the Vietnamese War. Presidents pretty much disregard it because they think it is unconstitutional. They think that because they believe they have the ability to wage limited war given to them by the Constitution. Congress obviously disagrees.
Now, here's the rub. Neither Congress nor the President have enough faith in their position to bring this to the Supreme Court. It will take a decision by the Supreme Court to really decide this. If they agree with Congress that this law does not go against the original intent of the Constitution then Congress will have to either declare war or give their approval for a President to keep troops in combat. If the Supreme Court agrees with the Executive then Congress' only recourse would be too cut off funds for a war. And of course, that means cutting off funds (Which means supplies) for troops in contact with an enemy.