Does anybody here actually realize the true mechanics of the legal aspect of war in our governmental structure

Question

I see so many people making assumptions without the basic knowledge to back it up. First lesson; in government, common sense is nonexistent. This does not mean that government makes no sense: it simply means that your definitions of words are not always consistent with the legal term.

This being said, does anybody here truly comprehend how war works in our legal structure?
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a recent announcement, said that without funding from Congress, they would have to make several layoffs. This question is not aimed at him, but instead at people's reactions.
The first thing people I've talked to have said is "Congress needs to support the war, Congress needs to give more money, etc."
Unless we are in an official state of war (which we aren't) Congress has to constantly re approve every single increment of money sent over. This is the only leverage Congress as over the war right now. If in a state of war, Bush would become supreme commander. Look it up :D Justin

Thanks everybody for the answers. I was trying to start some discussion for my political science class...
Here's a couple answers.
We have not officially in a state of war. Congress has given authority to invade, which is not the same thing. Technically we are in ongoing military operations.
And I'll be damned if now I can't find where I had gotten the (For now) assumption that the president got different powers. I know I read it somewhere extremely credible, and now I cannot find it again, which frustratingly makes me look like a complete idiot.

Oh, and "D Justin" is me. That was :D (smiley face) Justin (I ran out of room to write more.)

Good answers from everybody, I don't know who I'm gonna pick for best answer...

Justin

Answer 1

No. If Congress declared war under the power granted it in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution the President would not become Supreme Commander. He would remain Commander-In-Chief, the title accorded to him in Article Two of the Constitution. In addition, no appropriation for the military can exceed a period of two years. Even in a declared war. That is also part of Article One of the Constitution.
Look it up!

Answer 2

Under the War Power's Act the President can go to war without declaring war. This action has to be told to Congress within I think 4 days of the start of military action. The President as commander in chief of the military can send soldiers to war if he sees a necessary reason.

Congress can stop a war in a heart beak simply by cutting off the funding for that war. That is what happened in Vietnam. That is the only war that we won every battle, but lost the war at the negotiation table by the Secretary of State and the fact that Congress cut off the funding. I have no idea who D. Justin is, but I do know the Constitution and the War Power's Act.

Answer 3

The funding issue would be no different had Congress passed a formal Declaration of War. The President gets no special powers with a Declaration.

Answer 4

The constitution says that Congress has the authority to declare war and fund war, but that no war funding can be written for more than 2 years in advance. Basically, its saying in pretty plain language that declaring and funding war is Congress' job. The president may be in charge of the military, but Congress does sort of say what the military is being funded for.

Answer 5

Actually we are in an official state of war. Public Law 107-243 passed in October of 2002 was overwhelmingly passed by congress giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Answer 6

Does anybody really care?

Answer 7

f the troops. f iraq. they never attacked us