The Consequences of Allowing Presidents to Ignore the Declare War Clause

While most criticisms of nonoriginalism focus on the creation of constitutional rights that do not exist in the document, the failure to follow the original meaning concerning the separation of powers should receive more attention.  In particular, the failure of the courts and, in areas where the courts do not typically decide matters, the political branches to enforce the original meaning has had serious harm.

Consider the requirement under the Constitution’s original meaning that Congress authorize American wars (except where the U.S. is attacked).  There is a strong case to be made that Constitution’s original meaning imposes this rule.  Despite claims of presidents who seek to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, the Constitution’s original meaning would work well.  By contrast, under our existing “constitutional practice,” presidents are usually able to engage in war without congressional authorization, as President Obama did in Libya.  And this not only allows presidents to fight wars that the country is not behind, but also undermines the entire system of responsibility that the Constitution establishes in this area. 

In the typical situation, the President believes that he does not need an authorization of force to take action, but seeks such authority anyway, presumably to increase the political support for his actions.  In this situation, the Congress has little reason to provide such authorization.  It would require the members to take political responsibility for an action that they cannot control.

Under the Constitution’s original meaning, things work better.  The President could not act on his own and his attempt to do so would be an impeachable offense that would be widely rejected.  But that would not mean that the Congress would be unwilling, as it often is now, to provide authorization.  First, the Congress would feel political pressure to act, because without its authorization, no actions could be taken.  Second, because the Congress could impose binding limits, it could set the parameters of the action and therefore take responsibility for a decision it made.

This is the way that the constitutional system is supposed to operate.  But because presidents of both parties have asserted and exercised the power to take offensive military actions, it is undermined.  The Congress becomes infantilized, refusing to take responsibility because it has no ultimate power.  The President enhances his own power, because he rightly claims that the Congress is unwilling to act, and the President becomes the ultimate decider.  This is no improvement on the decisions of the Framers.  It is a corruption and a serious infirmity.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on November 24, 2015 at 15:53:46 pm

Fair enough! But help me with something here. You speak of limits the Congress may place upon the Exectuive's actions. Other than the "purse", a considerable but, nowadays, rarely exercised power what are these limits?

It is clearly not the role of the Congress to conduct the war (even if one stretches the clause of naval powers, etc), to define strategy, deploy forces, etc. Ultimately, isn't the Congress, once authorization given, "powerless"?

Clearly, the Congress as currently populated is loathe to take responsibility; however, is it not also fair to say that even in "Constitutional" war, they may shirk responsibility as the Constitution grants the actual war making powers (not the declaratory power) in a Commander-in-Chief. I suspect Mr. Madison recognized the difficulty of too many chiefs in this regard.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on November 24, 2015 at 19:28:32 pm

The Declaration of War can impose various limits on the conduct of the war. For example, it might limits on the scope or even how the war is conducted.

read full comment
Image of Mike Rappaport
Mike Rappaport
on November 24, 2015 at 20:27:51 pm

I stand corrected; as a theoretical matter, you are correct.
2 questions:

1) Have such limits ever actually been imposed?
2) Would you agree that given, as you correctly point out, Congressional "infantilism", is it realistic to expect this?

But your point on originalism providing a sensible guide to war making and "declaring" is quite valid.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on November 25, 2015 at 01:15:36 am

What one must realize is that the Constitution,which is basically a dead letter,has nothing to do with the Presidential power to engage in various wars around the world. The main factor is the United Nations Charter. That is that the Korean War,the Vietnam War,the Gulf War and all the other dozens of "actions" that America has been involved in over these past many decades are authorized by the United Nations. The only way that the Congress can intervene is to cut off the funding towards America's involvement in these "actions." This is basically how the Vietnam War was ended. If the United States would withdraw from the U.N. the President would then have to have the vote of Congress to go to war. Unfortunately once the U.N. Charter was approved by the U.S.Senate and signed into law back in 1945 much of America's sovereignty was done away with.

read full comment
Image of libertarian jerry
libertarian jerry

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.