Should congressional approval be required for all or most military actions?

[Donerail]

The way the War Powers Resolution sets things up seems to be fine, even if the law itself is unconstitutional nonsense.

So should congress have to approve wars?

Yes, Congress should have to approve wars. Not all military action though. What we're doing in Syria or Libya is/was not a war. What we did in Iraq was.

The difference being, of course, the party of the man giving the orders.

[AkSaber]

Absolutely. Why is this even a question? The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as it is and should be repealed. Congress should authorize any and all uses of military force by the United States government.

Perfectly said.

[Beet]

Arguing that air strikes are not going to war is a slippery slope that wouldn't pass muster in any other historical scenario. I mean the Japanese could have bombed Pearl Harbor without invading any US islands and said it wasn't a war. Or if the US were to bomb Paris today its not an act of war if were just bombing from the sky. Absurd. Bombing a country is so far out into an "act of war" it practically makes the distinction meaningless if it is designated as anything less. The real (implicit) argument of these folks is that "yeah it's a war but who really cares? the country were attacking is so weak nothing of real harm will come to us." Of course this breaks down if said country does find a way to strike back. And by that point, it's too late for Congress to make any meaningful distinction or choice because the line was already crossed. The new lassiez faire attitude over one man's ability to make the decision to go to war then, should be repudiated.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Absolutely. Why is this even a question? The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as it is and should be repealed. Congress should authorize any and all uses of military force by the United States government.

Perfectly said.

Things got so out of hand since the end of WW2, the War Powers Resolution was actually meant to limit the president's ability to unilaterally go to war, even though it doesn't do so nearly enough to be in line with the Constitution.

[angus]

yes, always.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 doesn't go far enough in checking the president's authority in this regard.

[barfbag]

Didn't you guys listen to Biden before he was Vice-President? He said congress must approve wars. Now that he's Vice-President, his view is much different, but at an earlier point in time he took a different position.

[Maxwell]

Absolutely. Why is this even a question? The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as it is and should be repealed. Congress should authorize any and all uses of military force by the United States government.

Yep. Don't know why this is even a question.

[angus]

Didn't you guys listen to Biden before he was Vice-President? He said congress must approve wars. Now that he's Vice-President, his view is much different, but at an earlier point in time he took a different position.

Biden--as the wise former poster jmfcst often pointed out, even long before anyone imagined that he might one day become Vice President--is sleazy and hypocritical.  Nothing he says or does should ever surprise you.  I was astonished when Obama picked him as a running mate, and I'm astonished still.  I cannot understand what he brings to that administration, other than baggage.

[barfbag]

Didn't you guys listen to Biden before he was Vice-President? He said congress must approve wars. Now that he's Vice-President, his view is much different, but at an earlier point in time he took a different position.

Biden--as the wise former poster jmfcst often pointed out, even long before anyone imagined that he might one day become Vice President--is sleazy and hypocritical.  Nothing he says or does should ever surprise you.  I was astonished when Obama picked him as a running mate, and I'm astonished still.  I cannot understand what he brings to that administration, other than baggage.

Yes according to Biden and I'm quoting him, "they're gonna put ya'll back in chains" was his remark about if Romney/Ryan were elected. He is a walking gaffe and a total asshole.

[Lief 🗽]

The way the War Powers Resolution sets things up seems to be fine, even if the law itself is unconstitutional nonsense.

So should congress have to approve wars?

Yes, Congress should have to approve wars. Not all military action though. What we're doing in Syria or Libya is/was not a war. What we did in Iraq was.

The difference being, of course, the party of the man giving the orders.

If you think that's the only difference between the Iraq War and what we did in Libya then there's not much point in talking to you.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Yes, Congress should have to approve wars. Not all military action though. What we're doing in Syria or Libya is/was not a war. What we did in Iraq was.
[/quote]

Basically this.  I believe that the president must go to congress to declare war.  What we're proposing in Libya is not war.  While I disagree with action in Libya, I don't think that Obama has to ask congress permission. 

[barfbag]

The way the War Powers Resolution sets things up seems to be fine, even if the law itself is unconstitutional nonsense.

So should congress have to approve wars?

Yes, Congress should have to approve wars. Not all military action though. What we're doing in Syria or Libya is/was not a war. What we did in Iraq was.

The difference being, of course, the party of the man giving the orders.

If you think that's the only difference between the Iraq War and what we did in Libya then there's not much point in talking to you.

How does your party like it now that the shoe is on the other foot? Do you see what Bush and the rest of us had to go through when people like you were asking where the weapons of mass destruction were? Or when you were accusing him of going to war for oil?

[bedstuy]

Absolutely. Why is this even a question? The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as it is and should be repealed. Congress should authorize any and all uses of military force by the United States government.

Why do you say that?  That's not in the Constitution and has never been the understanding of the law.  I agree with you that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but for the opposite reason.  It puts unconstitutional limits of the power of the executive.

[TNF]

Absolutely. Why is this even a question? The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as it is and should be repealed. Congress should authorize any and all uses of military force by the United States government.

Why do you say that?  That's not in the Constitution and has never been the understanding of the law.  I agree with you that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but for the opposite reason.  It puts unconstitutional limits of the power of the executive.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President has the right to send troops into combat without congressional approval.

[bedstuy]

Absolutely. Why is this even a question? The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as it is and should be repealed. Congress should authorize any and all uses of military force by the United States government.

Why do you say that?  That's not in the Constitution and has never been the understanding of the law.  I agree with you that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but for the opposite reason.  It puts unconstitutional limits of the power of the executive.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President has the right to send troops into combat without congressional approval.

Article II Section 2 says the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.   

[angus]

Article II Section 2 says the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  

It does, but Article I Section 8 says that the congress shall have to power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia..." etc., etc.

Basically, the Founders thought that hundreds of men in control of the military was preferable to control by one man.  Our congressmembers are assholes individually, and collectively, but in sufficiently different ways that we're likely to get a better outcome if they control the military than the Commander.  The Commander is a bit like a bird in a cage with clipped wings.  He's allowed to jump up on the stick, to drink his water, to sing, to peck at the bell, and to shit on the newspaper, but he doesn't get to fly.  

[Lief 🗽]

Right, so going by the constitution, the president should be able to command the armed forces to do whatever he wants. If congress doesn't like it, they're free to stop paying the soldiers and providing them with guns and bullets.

It's not self evident at all that the founders thought what you think they did. The congress gets to control the funding of the army, but once that army is funded, the president decides what to do with it.

[bedstuy]

Article II Section 2 says the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.   

It does, but Article I Section 8 says that the congress shall have to power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia..." etc., etc.

Basically, the Founders thought that hundreds of men in control of the military was preferable to control by one man.  Our congressmembers are assholes individually, and collectively, but in sufficiently different ways that we're likely to get a better outcome if they control the military than the Commander.  The Commander is a bit like a bird in a cage with clipped wings.  He's allowed to jump up on the stick, to drink his water, to sing, to peck at the bell, and to shit on the newspaper, but he doesn't get to fly. 

I don't think that's true at all.  To quote Federalist number 74:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

Article II Section 2 says the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.   

It does, but Article I Section 8 says that the congress shall have to power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia..." etc., etc.

Basically, the Founders thought that hundreds of men in control of the military was preferable to control by one man.  Our congressmembers are assholes individually, and collectively, but in sufficiently different ways that we're likely to get a better outcome if they control the military than the Commander.  The Commander is a bit like a bird in a cage with clipped wings.  He's allowed to jump up on the stick, to drink his water, to sing, to peck at the bell, and to shit on the newspaper, but he doesn't get to fly. 

I don't think that's true at all.  To quote Federalist number 74:

Yes; the direction of war. Nowhere does it mention starting them, merely directing them once begun. The explanation for this is found in Federalist #69:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[barfbag]

Right, so going by the constitution, the president should be able to command the armed forces to do whatever he wants. If congress doesn't like it, they're free to stop paying the soldiers and providing them with guns and bullets.

It's not self evident at all that the founders thought what you think they did. The congress gets to control the funding of the army, but once that army is funded, the president decides what to do with it.

Not whatever he wants. Congress must approve wars. If we go to war, then congress controls the funding. As for airstrikes, it should be the president's decision based on well thought advice.

[bedstuy]

Yes; the direction of war. Nowhere does it mention starting them, merely directing them once begun. The explanation for this is found in Federalist #69:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is one of those questions where there's no neat dividing line and no real legal precedent. 
Ultimately, there is no prohibition on military action without a declaration of war.  So, what prevents the President from using the military without a declaration of war?  It's the positive powers of congress, impeachment and the power to appropriate funds.

[morgieb]

In general, yes.

The only time where it might differ is if the US is actually being attacked, but even then I would expect/hope that Congress gives permission.

[angus]

... what prevents the President from using the military without a declaration of war?  It's the positive powers of congress, impeachment and the power to appropriate funds.

Well, now we're back to the War Powers Act, which in my opinion doesn't go far enough to limit the executive.  It's becoming a circular thread.  I guess we'll just have to recognize that there are differing strong opinions on this matter, and that each one can cite some sacred literature supporting his cause.  It was sort of a normative question from the get-go.

[politicallefty]

Yes. At the most, the executive branch should have very limited authority to unilaterally defend from an attack (such as an attack on a foreign military base). Otherwise, the President needs to make his case before both Houses of Congress and receive an affirmative vote from both. I agree with angus on the War Powers Act. Any constitutional challenge to it isn't one arising from the executive branch, but rather one where Congress has ceded too much power to the Presidency. If it's ever challenged in the courts, it may very well be struck down. But I wouldn't expect a ruling favourable to the President.

[TNF]

Right, so going by the constitution, the president should be able to command the armed forces to do whatever he wants. If congress doesn't like it, they're free to stop paying the soldiers and providing them with guns and bullets.

It's not self evident at all that the founders thought what you think they did. The congress gets to control the funding of the army, but once that army is funded, the president decides what to do with it.

Except that's only happened maybe once in American history, and it wasn't the President who took a hit for it.