Clear & Present Danger: The Use and Abuse of Presidential War Powers

March 6, 2024

Clear & Present Danger: The Use and Abuse of Presidential War Powers

Listen and subscribe to the podcast

The Founding Principles of War Powers

At the Constitutional Convention, the Founders aimed to balance power between the President and Congress regarding war authority. They intended for ambition to counteract ambition, ensuring that neither branch could monopolize war powers. The Constitution reflects this by granting Congress the authority to initiate war, emphasizing the importance of deliberation and collective decision-making in matters of war. Despite criticisms of presidential overreach in modern times, the original intent was to maintain a system where Congress serves as a check on executive power, particularly in matters of war initiation.

Balancing War Powers Between Congress and the President

The Founders intended a system where Congress, with the power to declare war, and the President, as commander-in-chief, would engage in a healthy constitutional battle over war authority. This balance, highlighted during the neutrality proclamation of 1793, aimed to prevent unilateral executive decisions in matters of war, emphasizing the importance of deliberation and restraint in foreign policy decisions. Despite differing interpretations of treaties and alliances, such as the French-American treaty, the Washington administration’s cautious approach set a precedent for prudent executive action in navigating international conflicts, showcasing the early workings of the constitutional checks and balances on war powers.

Madison’s Constrained View on Executive War Powers

James Madison’s presidency during the War of 1812 showcased his strict interpretation of executive war powers, believing that the president’s authority to act in war matters was contingent upon legislative action. Madison’s cautious approach reflected a broader constitutional understanding that emphasized legislative primacy in declaring war, despite increasing partisanship and external pressures. This view persisted into the late 19th century, influencing subsequent presidential interpretations of executive war powers.

Shift in Executive War Powers in the 20th Century

In the 20th century, a shift occurred in the exercise of executive war powers in the United States, marked by an expansion of presidential authority, particularly in response to ideological threats like communism. Unlike the earlier emphasis on congressional declarations of war, this era saw presidents taking more unilateral action in military engagements, driven by the need for nimble responses to ideological adversaries, such as during the Cold War. This departure from traditional constitutional norms reflects a changing geopolitical landscape and the perceived exigencies of ideological conflict.

Constitutional Breakdown: Korean War and Vietnam War

The Korean War and Vietnam War exemplify constitutional breakdowns in the 20th century, where presidential decisions led to military engagements without formal declarations of war by Congress. In the case of the Korean War, Truman’s actions lacked domestic constitutional deliberation, relying instead on UN Security Council resolutions. Similarly, the Vietnam War, initiated under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, showcased unilateral presidential action with limited congressional involvement, signaling a departure from traditional constitutional norms.

Presidential War Powers: From Vietnam to Modern Conflicts

Presidents from Lyndon B. Johnson to modern administrations, despite challenges like the War Powers Resolution of 1973, have maintained significant discretion in initiating military actions without formal declarations of war by Congress. This has been facilitated through broad and often vague authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs), allowing presidents to engage in military operations with minimal congressional oversight, resulting in a shift towards ‘Top Gun Wars’ characterized by limited risk to American troops and continued executive dominance in foreign military engagements.

The Complex Dynamics of Presidential War Powers

Congress, due to various reasons, lacks the willpower to reclaim its authority over military actions, allowing successive executive branches to assert expansive powers under Article Two or rely on broad authorizations like those from the War on Terror. Predicting the future of this issue hinges on presidential personalities and potential catalytic events, such as a significant emergency, that could either further expand presidential powers or spur Congress to reassert its constitutional role.