Abstract: INTRODUCTIONThe term is found at four locations in our Constitution. However, the word alone signals nothing about the of the two political branches the Constitution creates, executive and legislative, and nowhere in the Constitution does the term appear.1 At some point in our history, the word powers was coupled with There has ensued a continuing argument about who, as between the President and Congress, owns those But little or no attention has been given to just what are being discussed, and no attention at all has been given to what the Constitution itself says about those Yet, a close examination of the Constitution readily reveals the answers. Congress owns all of the to create and field a military (no matter how the are defined), and the President has the executive authority.2 The involvement of the United States in multiple military conflicts, ultimately at the behest of the President and not the Congress, is evidence that currently both the executive and legislative branches operate contrary to the mandates of the Constitution. Thus, the notion of war must be reconsidered.Periodically, our nation seems to show renewed interest in the powers. Generally, this interest and the resulting endless, and often unproductive arguments occur when the President steps out ahead of Congress in initiating engagements with some level of military operations and some exceptional level of costs. The pattern, however, is to say the least, uneven.3 The scenario for the periodic war arguments generally includes an executive branch already engaged and a Congress belatedly awakening to the fact that it has been left out of the decision to engage, but given the bill for the costs and the blame for the social ramifications.4 In recent times, the rancor over this subject has included a host of commentaries by many who hold themselves out as experts on the subject. Their commentary ranges from full vindication of the President for whatever may have been his unilateral conduct, to thorough condemnation of the President. Both sides invoke such touchstones as war powers, declaration power, and the power of the purse. One side may occasionally suggest that the President should be impeached for his unilateralism. This melange of commentary contains efforts to reach back to writings from medieval England, Europe of four centuries earlier, and the United States' two hundred plus years of extraordinarily undisciplined constitutional experience.5Most remarkable in these commentaries, and especially in the usually belated but then critical behaviors of Congress, is the nearly complete lack of attention to the Constitution itself. Indeed, it is generally assumed by many who write and speak on the subject that the Constitution is devoid of instruction and direction, other than its specific language designating the President Commander in Chief and giving Congress the authority to declare war. There is surprisingly large support for the notion that the war are vested predominantly in the President as Commander in Chief. The opinions in this regard vary from the idea that the President has all to the more modest notion that he holds all of the subject only to the possibility that Congress might refuse to provide the funds necessary to carry them out. There is also a camp that accords the President the war only when necessary to repel sudden attack. Finally, there is a camp that suggests we should not bother to address the subject in its constitutional context, but simply proceed with perfecting a political solution.The conversation ignores both the very specific language of the Constitution and the Constitution's history, which, far more than the attenuated references usually made to British and European history, framed the intent and the language of the document.6There is no such thing as …
Publication Year: 2012
Publication Date: 2012-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot