since WW II, presidents have pre-empted Congress's constitutional authority to declare war. It needs to stop.......if for no other reason than some presidents don't know when not to pick a fight.
I agree. The 2 recent presidents who did not follow this were Nixon and Clinton. Bush got congressional approval for military action (with Kerry's blessing).
<font color=brown>He did? I'd like to see the link. I don't believe any president has gotten Congress's approval since WW II.<font color=black>
**********************************************
Balkans Bungling:
Why Only Congress Can Declare War
Doug Bandow
When the US. attacked Yugoslavia earlier this year, it inaugurated war against another sovereign state that had not attacked or threatened America or an American ally. The President, and the President alone, made the decision. The constitutional requirement that only Congress shall declare war is obviously a dead letter. Yet the administration's embarrassing bungling in Kosovo illustrates just why the Framers intended that the decision to go to war be vested in the legislature.
Presidential war-making has become a constant. Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada; George Bush attacked Panama. Neither bothered to consult Congress. Bush planned to attack Iraq irrespective of Congress, explaining that "I don't think I need it" when asked if congressional approval was necessary. Why? "Many attorneys," he said, had "so advised me." He apparently didn't bother to read the Constitution himself.
President Clinton ended up only a Carterbrokered agreement away from invading Haiti and has promiscuously attacked other nations or groups within nations - Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Yugoslavia - without appropriate legislative authorization. Like his predecessor, Bill Clinton has resisted any attempt to restrict his war powers. In late 1993 the one-time law professor and state attorney general claimed that "the Constitution leaves the President, for good and sufficient reasons, the ultimate decisionmaking authority." He opposed congressional attempts to restrict his plans in both Bosnia and Haiti and more recently pressured Congress not to vote on his plan to launch air strikes on Yugoslavia and place 4,000 peacekeeping soldiers in Kosovo.
Alas, this executive presumption goes back to Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, and, indeed, much further.
<snip>
Presidents have been able to ignore the Constitution's clear strictures only because successive Congresses have allowed them to do so. The partisan flip-flops have been dazzling: Republicans raged against Truman's actions but defended Nixon; Democrats demanded that Bush go to Congress but encouraged executive war-making by Clinton. Many legislators care less about dead soldiers than dead careers. Avoiding a vote allows them to avoid taking any responsibility on the most serious of issues, war and peace.
It is time for all sides to re-examine their commitment to the Constitution. Presidents take an oath to support the Constitution; that means going to Congress for a declaration of war. Legislators, who make the same pledge, should want to protect not only the Constitution, but also their institutional authority. Yet the issue is far more fundamental than just a political struggle between the executive and legislative. The nation's security is at stake. As a result of presidents' routinely plunging America into overseas conflicts that are at best tangentially related to U.S. security, hundreds of thousands of soldiers have been killed, hundreds of billions of dollars squandered, numerous civil liberties lost, and a host of government bureaucracies spawned. The issue of war and peace is simply too important to leave to the president.
Perhaps this never has been more obvious than after watching this administration turn a minor tragedy into a monumental crisis in Europe's tar baby, the Balkans. The President and his advisers were surprised when the Albanian Kosovars first rejected the Rambouillet diktat, surprised when bombs did not compel Belgrade's acquiescence, surprised when the Serbs struck back at the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Albanian Kosovars, surprised when refugees overwhelmed neighboring countries, surprised at the capture of US. soldiers stationed in Macedonia, and surprised that the conflict continued, week after week. A full and unfettered congressional debate could have prevented the looming debacle.
libertyhaven.com
********************************************************
<font color=brown> Nor do GW Bush seem to care one way or another. Are you sure he got Congress's approval? It sure doesn't look like it. <font color=black>
Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote
Some See Such Support As Politically Helpful
By Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 26, 2002; Page A01
"Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials."
<snip>
"Bush has said repeatedly he will consult lawmakers before deciding how to proceed but has pointedly stopped short of saying he will request their approval. The difference between getting legislators' opinions, as opposed to their permission, could lead to a showdown this fall between Congress and the White House."
washingtonpost.com |
