SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Power to End War
Aug 22, 2007
The debate over whether and how to end the war in Iraq has been muddied by legal disputes over which branch of the federal government has the power to do what. Supporters of a strong presidency can point to court decisions upholding a broad reading of the commander in chief's powers. Constitutional purists who believe in Congress' supreme power to authorize war can quote the Framers and most early presidents in their own behalf.
What has been largely ignored in this debate is what Congress has actually done in previous conflicts. In fact, there are many precedents for Congress to act to restrict presidential authority or capabilities to fight the war. The question is whether Congress can muster majorities to enact the necessary laws.
How many people realize, for example, that Congress has formally authorized the use of force at least 15 times in addition to the five conflicts in which it voted a declaration of war?
How many realize that there have been at least seven occasions when Congress denied specific presidential requests for authorities or capabilities to fight the war as he wished?
How many realize that Congress voted to tie the hands of at least six presidents with legally binding limits on conducting significant military activities -- and that those presidents complied with the restrictions?
Those who say Congress shouldn't micromanage military operations or shouldn't interfere with the commander in chief's freedom of action need to explain why these precedents should have no weight now.
The historical record also shows many times when Congress failed to complete action on an issue of war powers -- which is to say, when one or both houses passed resolutions or other measures to approve, oppose, or limit the use of force but Congress as a whole did not cross the important legal barrier of sending a completed bill to the president. If lawmakers care about their institution -- and about the course of the war in Iraq and the US soldiers fighting there -- they should take whatever action majorities can support, even if those are only advisory measures rather than binding law. They can even impose conditions in one paragraph and allow the president to suspend the restriction by another. Even that is better than giving the president free rein.
Consider some of those binding restrictions. President McKinley was barred by law from annexing Cuba. There were many laws limiting Franklin Roosevelt's ability to send arms to nations threatened by Hitler until shortly before Pearl Harbor, so the president had to wait for the law to be changed. Roosevelt even had to re-define the Western Hemisphere as extending to Iceland in order to stay in compliance with the draft law's restriction on sending draftees outside the Western Hemisphere. That prohibition was repealed soon after war was declared.
During the Vietnam War, President Nixon agreed to comply with several congressional restrictions on military operations: the 1969 ban on sending ground combat troops into Laos or Thailand; the 1970 ban on reintroducing US combat troops into Cambodia; and the 1973 ban on US combat operations anywhere in Southeast Asia. In 1976, President Ford reluctantly agreed to the congressional ban on US military operations in Angola.
President Reagan accepted the congressional restriction on US troops sent to Lebanon in 1983, permitting them to use force only in self-defense. President Clinton accepted the congressional bans on US military operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994, and in Rwanda after October 7, 1994 -- measures which wrote into binding law promises already made to Congress. President George W. Bush has complied with ceilings on the number of US military and contractor personnel sent to Colombia.
All these are precedents which could be options now -- if Congress has the will to act. The worst outcome regarding Iraq would be inconclusive action, incomplete legislation, unresolved differences between House and Senate. That outcome would undercut congressional claims to broad authority in wartime and would suggest instead an effort to avoid responsibility for the conflict.
Charles A. Stevenson is the author of "Congress at War: The Politics of Conflict Since 1789."
(c) 2007 Globe Newspaper Company
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Boston Globe
The debate over whether and how to end the war in Iraq has been muddied by legal disputes over which branch of the federal government has the power to do what. Supporters of a strong presidency can point to court decisions upholding a broad reading of the commander in chief's powers. Constitutional purists who believe in Congress' supreme power to authorize war can quote the Framers and most early presidents in their own behalf.
What has been largely ignored in this debate is what Congress has actually done in previous conflicts. In fact, there are many precedents for Congress to act to restrict presidential authority or capabilities to fight the war. The question is whether Congress can muster majorities to enact the necessary laws.
How many people realize, for example, that Congress has formally authorized the use of force at least 15 times in addition to the five conflicts in which it voted a declaration of war?
How many realize that there have been at least seven occasions when Congress denied specific presidential requests for authorities or capabilities to fight the war as he wished?
How many realize that Congress voted to tie the hands of at least six presidents with legally binding limits on conducting significant military activities -- and that those presidents complied with the restrictions?
Those who say Congress shouldn't micromanage military operations or shouldn't interfere with the commander in chief's freedom of action need to explain why these precedents should have no weight now.
The historical record also shows many times when Congress failed to complete action on an issue of war powers -- which is to say, when one or both houses passed resolutions or other measures to approve, oppose, or limit the use of force but Congress as a whole did not cross the important legal barrier of sending a completed bill to the president. If lawmakers care about their institution -- and about the course of the war in Iraq and the US soldiers fighting there -- they should take whatever action majorities can support, even if those are only advisory measures rather than binding law. They can even impose conditions in one paragraph and allow the president to suspend the restriction by another. Even that is better than giving the president free rein.
Consider some of those binding restrictions. President McKinley was barred by law from annexing Cuba. There were many laws limiting Franklin Roosevelt's ability to send arms to nations threatened by Hitler until shortly before Pearl Harbor, so the president had to wait for the law to be changed. Roosevelt even had to re-define the Western Hemisphere as extending to Iceland in order to stay in compliance with the draft law's restriction on sending draftees outside the Western Hemisphere. That prohibition was repealed soon after war was declared.
During the Vietnam War, President Nixon agreed to comply with several congressional restrictions on military operations: the 1969 ban on sending ground combat troops into Laos or Thailand; the 1970 ban on reintroducing US combat troops into Cambodia; and the 1973 ban on US combat operations anywhere in Southeast Asia. In 1976, President Ford reluctantly agreed to the congressional ban on US military operations in Angola.
President Reagan accepted the congressional restriction on US troops sent to Lebanon in 1983, permitting them to use force only in self-defense. President Clinton accepted the congressional bans on US military operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994, and in Rwanda after October 7, 1994 -- measures which wrote into binding law promises already made to Congress. President George W. Bush has complied with ceilings on the number of US military and contractor personnel sent to Colombia.
All these are precedents which could be options now -- if Congress has the will to act. The worst outcome regarding Iraq would be inconclusive action, incomplete legislation, unresolved differences between House and Senate. That outcome would undercut congressional claims to broad authority in wartime and would suggest instead an effort to avoid responsibility for the conflict.
Charles A. Stevenson is the author of "Congress at War: The Politics of Conflict Since 1789."
(c) 2007 Globe Newspaper Company
The debate over whether and how to end the war in Iraq has been muddied by legal disputes over which branch of the federal government has the power to do what. Supporters of a strong presidency can point to court decisions upholding a broad reading of the commander in chief's powers. Constitutional purists who believe in Congress' supreme power to authorize war can quote the Framers and most early presidents in their own behalf.
What has been largely ignored in this debate is what Congress has actually done in previous conflicts. In fact, there are many precedents for Congress to act to restrict presidential authority or capabilities to fight the war. The question is whether Congress can muster majorities to enact the necessary laws.
How many people realize, for example, that Congress has formally authorized the use of force at least 15 times in addition to the five conflicts in which it voted a declaration of war?
How many realize that there have been at least seven occasions when Congress denied specific presidential requests for authorities or capabilities to fight the war as he wished?
How many realize that Congress voted to tie the hands of at least six presidents with legally binding limits on conducting significant military activities -- and that those presidents complied with the restrictions?
Those who say Congress shouldn't micromanage military operations or shouldn't interfere with the commander in chief's freedom of action need to explain why these precedents should have no weight now.
The historical record also shows many times when Congress failed to complete action on an issue of war powers -- which is to say, when one or both houses passed resolutions or other measures to approve, oppose, or limit the use of force but Congress as a whole did not cross the important legal barrier of sending a completed bill to the president. If lawmakers care about their institution -- and about the course of the war in Iraq and the US soldiers fighting there -- they should take whatever action majorities can support, even if those are only advisory measures rather than binding law. They can even impose conditions in one paragraph and allow the president to suspend the restriction by another. Even that is better than giving the president free rein.
Consider some of those binding restrictions. President McKinley was barred by law from annexing Cuba. There were many laws limiting Franklin Roosevelt's ability to send arms to nations threatened by Hitler until shortly before Pearl Harbor, so the president had to wait for the law to be changed. Roosevelt even had to re-define the Western Hemisphere as extending to Iceland in order to stay in compliance with the draft law's restriction on sending draftees outside the Western Hemisphere. That prohibition was repealed soon after war was declared.
During the Vietnam War, President Nixon agreed to comply with several congressional restrictions on military operations: the 1969 ban on sending ground combat troops into Laos or Thailand; the 1970 ban on reintroducing US combat troops into Cambodia; and the 1973 ban on US combat operations anywhere in Southeast Asia. In 1976, President Ford reluctantly agreed to the congressional ban on US military operations in Angola.
President Reagan accepted the congressional restriction on US troops sent to Lebanon in 1983, permitting them to use force only in self-defense. President Clinton accepted the congressional bans on US military operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994, and in Rwanda after October 7, 1994 -- measures which wrote into binding law promises already made to Congress. President George W. Bush has complied with ceilings on the number of US military and contractor personnel sent to Colombia.
All these are precedents which could be options now -- if Congress has the will to act. The worst outcome regarding Iraq would be inconclusive action, incomplete legislation, unresolved differences between House and Senate. That outcome would undercut congressional claims to broad authority in wartime and would suggest instead an effort to avoid responsibility for the conflict.
Charles A. Stevenson is the author of "Congress at War: The Politics of Conflict Since 1789."
(c) 2007 Globe Newspaper Company
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy