Should the president be forced to ask for a declaration of war in the future?

Question

Too much power for one person if you ask me.

Actually, Congress did not approve a declaration of war. They just funded Bush's incursion.

Answer 1

We have never gone to war without one - you need to wake up and read a book or two, perhaps a newspaper as well.

Answer 2

The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. However, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of ALL our Armed Forces and hence has the power to send the troops into battle.
President Bush DID HAVE permission from Congress before the current Iraq war began.
I don't know about you, I would prefer the President have the power. Otherwise, by the time Congress got through arguing about it, it would probably be too late.

Answer 3

After watching congress for oh, 45 years, I would hope that the President would use good sense when it comes to the Military and responding to world situations where time is important. If you have to go thru Congress, it may take years and years cause they cant agree on anything and don't do nothing but pass pork barrel projects, get pay raises and consider taxing the working people.

While the Presidents approval rating is low, Congress has hit an all time low since the Viet Nam war. They are not doing anything to fix the mess we are in. They wont make the tax cuts permanent, address Illegal Immigration , or fix Social Security.

Why should be trust them to do anything right for the people who elected them and paid their salaries all these years?

Answer 4

Yes. Congress should declare war before entering into any war or should I say "conflict"?

Look, Congress has not declared war since WW II (I believe that's correct). They then let the President do what he wants and it ends up costing this country countless billions of dollars.

Shoot, the Viet Nam war cost over two hundred billion dollars and that was back in the 60's and early 70's.

Now we're in a "conflict" that is going to bankrupt our country. But hey, what do we care, freedom isn't free, it costs every thing we have. And this includes our children's future's.

Answer 5

On the evening of 9/11, a rational congress would have been drafting such a declaration; as req'd by the constitution.

(A war declaration is a declared [temporary] state of emergency. These twerps in congress can't seem to carry out any of their responsibilities b/c they're so busy snooping into our undesirable personal affairs.)

Answer 6

He already has to ask for that. Only Congress can declare war. But the prez is the commander-in-chief. Catch-22, so he can order our troops to war. The war powers act is how about how long he can play God, so insist it be strictly enforced and you have it both ways. If he/she knows how to fight and command it will never be needed. If not you got the usual since Iraq started....

Answer 7

A president can send the military to fight but congress needs t approve funds to fight that conflict.

While Bush has sent the military into Iraq it is congress who had to approve funding for it.

So there already exists a balance/counterbalance in place.

P.S. congress hasn't approved a declaration for war since WW2.

Answer 8

Presidents have the right to attack other countries anytime they deem it necessary (and congress has the right to declare war). High school graduates know F.D.R. and Truman decided the outcome of World War 2, not congress.

The constitution gives presidents the right to attack countries without the permission of congress (Article II Section 2). Any attempt by congress to limit a president's constitutional right would violate "separation of powers".

1) Constitution:
Article II, Section 2
"President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Article II, Section 1.
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

2) SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
a) Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 789 (1950) (President has authority to deploy United States armed forces "abroad or to any particular region")
b) Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850) ("As commander-in-chief, [the President] is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual")
c) Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 776 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (The "inherent powers" of the Commander in Chief "are clearly extensive.")
d) Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501, 515-16 (1927) (Brandeis & Holmes, JJ., concurring) (President "may direct any revenue cutter to cruise in any waters in order to perform any duty of the service")
e) Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 1971) (the President has "power as Commander-in-Chief to station forces abroad"); Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. 6 (1992).

Answer 9

The President has limited war powers, this allows us to respond quickly if needed. This limit is finite.

However, congress actually declares war, the president can veto it or not. This is the case of Iraq. Congress (including Hillary) voted for it.

Answer 10

Congress MUST reinstate it's Constitutional role as the only branch of gov't that can declare war....never again can they grant the Prez the power to use force at will any way he see fit.

Answer 11

Does it make a difference at this point. The Congress has let him do as he please.

If I didn't love this country so much, I'd move away. But I'm going to stay here and fight. I'm going to vote the punks out. All of them!!!!!!!!!

They should rename this country, United States of America Inc. That's all these people are concerned with, they corporate friends.

Hell, maybe I'll run for Congress.