The president has the power to commit the United States Armed Forces to war.

It seems in your article that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is an essential point on which you base your argument.

Here you say that "Congress reasserted its position in war policy by issuing the War Powers Resolution," but it seems it should read that the War Powers Resolution was an �attempt� by Congress to limit the powers of the President.

This is due to the fact that the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution has been debated since its majority override of Richard Nixon's veto in 1973.

It has been argued that the wording within the Constitution, specifically alluding to legislative war powers ("To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water") is meant to delegate to Congress the power to declare war of unprecedented intensity (read: total-war).

There is a difference here between "declare" and "commence" � as for Congress to "commence" war seems to infringe on the president's ability to uphold the oath of office, and therefore violates a commonly held republican principle: the separation of powers.

But for Congress to "declare" war would be to authorize the United States to proceed on the path towards absolute total warfare. This is illustrated by instances such as the Vietnam Conflict, in which the United States was involved in intense combat without the pre-authorization of Congress.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president not to attain Congressional approval, but to consult with Congress. The president has the power to commit the United States Armed Forces to war. And the Constitution is deliberately inefficient to require the government to work in tandem � as they did when Congress (in a joint session) authorized military force against Iraq, and cited the United State's determination to "prosecute the war on terrorism."

The president already attained approval from Congress to deploy troops to Iraq. He doesn't need to ask again.

> Comments