Presidential War Powers

[A18]

No. The Constitution explicitly and wisely vests the power to declare war in the Congress alone. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution himself, wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "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. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."

When Pierce Butler suggested at the Constitutional Convention that the power be vested in the president, his motion was not even seconded.

Even Alexander Hamilton, despite his normally expansive views of presidential power, said in Federalist #69 that the president's authority "would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature."

There is absolutely no reason to think that this power, more than any of the other enumerated powers, can be delegated to the president by Congress, especially given the founders' clear anxieties about presidents dragging the country into war.

That said, if there is a sudden invasion, the president has not only the right but the duty to repel it. That is why the Congress is assigned the power to "declare," rather than "make," war.

[Emsworth]

No. The President has no power to declare war, or to initiate hostilities. His powers as Commander-in-Chief amount to nothing more than the ability to direct the operations of the military in the course of a conflict.

The President does have the duty to repel invasions. Article IV, Section 4 declares that it is the duty of the United States--that is to say, not just Congress, but the whole federal government--to "protect each [State] against Invasion." However, even then, the President's powers are limited. He may not call forth the militia to repel the invasion, nor may he suspend habeas corpus: both of these powers are vested in Congress.

[A18]

The fact that it is a duty of the United States tells us nothing about how it is to be carried out.

I do believe that the president has the duty as Commander in Chief of the armed forces to repel invasions, however.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Option 3--however the War Powers Act is a violation of Article II Section 2, and I think the S.C. would rule in favor of the President if a case were to come up.

[MaC]

yeah, anyone know how the War Powers Act ties in with that?

[jokerman]

yeah, anyone know how the War Powers Act ties in with that?

I believe it settles any constitutional issues.  Because on the flip side, you could argue that through it Congress authorizes any deployments of troops by the President within the 60-90 day period.

[Paul Kemp]

Is this really the only thread in this section on this topic? I conducted a search but this is all that came up. I suppose this would be a good subject to bump given recent events.