Should US wars require a declaration of war from Congress?

Question

This country never went to war without one before Korea. This country never lost a war, or left one unfinished before Korea. The Constitution says that Congress has the right to declare war. Would a declaration of war unite everyone behind the cause and prevent backsliding by the politicians?
Secondly, do you think that the war powers act is unconstitutional?

Answer 1

Yes. Period.

The current "power" the President has is not afforded him in the constitution.

Answer 2

Yes. The Constitution says so. Unfortunately we have given Presidents power not intended in that document. A President should have power to react immediately on a limited basis if the country is attacked and then in a joint session of Congress explain why he/she wants to take the country to war. The President should give some general plan within a month and an estimate of costs. Periodically the President should meet with Congressional leaders and give an update on the state of the war. If the Congress is not satisfied with how things are going they do and should have the right to cut funding for any further agression. If the President can convince Congressional leaders by providing a plan, giving cost, general strategy for fighting and ending the war the Congress should listen and decide, on behalf of the people whom they represent whether to continue or not.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief but that should not give him cart blanche to go on and on with a war that is accomplishing nothing especially if he/she starts the war. It may be up to the President in that capacity to run the war but it is at the will of Congress that the President will be in a position to do so.

Answer 3

I doubt a declaration of war would unite everyone, despite all the things you hear, there were people against WWII and towards the end, people were very tired of it. The problem with requiring a declaration of war in all cases is it might have the potential of limiting a response in the event we were attacked (say a massive nuclear missile strike). I know, this is an extreme example, so you would need to have exceptions. If you agree that exceptions are necessary, where do you draw the line? If you spell out every situation and make it known, you will take away uncertainty from potential enemy's thought process, and uncertainty of response is a very powerful defensive weapon.

Answer 4

Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq. Their vote didn't unite everyone behind the cause or prevent backsliding by the politicians.

Answer 5

The congress has the constitutional duty to declare and fund conflict. The funding won't be able to be for more advantageous than 2 years, on the end of which they want to proceed funding it. The president would not have a say because there is not any bill for him to veto.

Answer 6

Congress authorized the war powers act to unseat Saddam Hussein. Now that Saddam is dead we are fighting an unconstitutional war.

Answer 7

they already do Esse'!
Come on homes it was only 4 years ago, ya didnt see the vote in Congress passing a US resolution declaring war on Iraq!

No se el "War Powers Act" but if it was in the Constitution we should use it!

Answer 8

No, it's not unconstitutional. Do you believe in balance of powers? why do you want to give congress so much authority? The president is the commander in chief for a reason. The president (whoever it is) should be above all the partisan bickering that goes on in congress.

Answer 9

Yep I think Congress should be the ones that declare it, no I think the war powers act is legal and consitutional!

Answer 10

They do. Congress must approve any war declaration, or law before the president can pass it.

Answer 11

congress did declare war