Would the War Powers Act hold up in the Supreme Court?

[Damien435]

In the constitution the president is given complete control over the United States Armed Forces. But after Vietnam Congress voted in the War Powers Act, which says that the President can not send troops into other countries for more than 90 days without a declaration of war or the express permission from Congress. I believe that this would not hold up in the Supreme Court, and I don't know how Congress could enforce it, after all, the President is in command of the most powerful army in the world, who is going to make him do something that he doesn't want to, I am surprised no president has ever tried to hold on to his power with force, it has happened lots of times in other countries, what makes the US so different in that aspect.

 

[Damien435]

Oops, um, sorry about this, I meant to put this under polls, I don't know why I put it in here, I must have accidently clicked on Military History instead of polls somehow, my bad.

 

[RnderSafe]

I have no problems with that particular Resolution as an idea.

That is all it is though, an idea written on paper with a rubber approval stamp. The War Powers Resolution is unconstitional and impractical. As you mentioned, the CinC is not bound by it because of his constitutional powers as commander in chief. Roosevelt, Johnson, Clinton .. they walked around the res. during their terms for specific conflicts.

 

[Gunner13]

I disagree with both of you. The President is bound by the US Constitution and Public Law. Moreover, the Congress controls the funding to support any and all government activites and can vote to suspend funding of anything it disapproves of (subject to Presidential Veto, of course, so they have to have a 2/3 majority).

 

[Darkmb101]

Congress has the power to impeach any president commiting crimes agains the Constitution.

 

[Damien435]

First of all, the War Powers Act was written after Vietnam, so Roosevelt and Johnson were not subject to it, and Clinton was in a minor conflict with few ground troops commited, we used our Air Craft instead of troops.

Second, yes, congress could cut the funding for defense, but that would be suicidal for the US, more likely they would try to make this an amendment to the Constitution, but that takes so long that the current president cou8ld likely be out of office by then.

As it is right now, the constitution clearly says that the president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, so if he feels that troops are needed then he can keep them overseas with or without congress' approval, the Supreme Court would have to vote in favor of the president, it is right there in the writing that the president is in the right.

 

[RnderSafe]

I disagree with both of you. The President is bound by the US Constitution and Public Law. Moreover, the Congress controls the funding to support any and all government activites and can vote to suspend funding of anything it disapproves of (subject to Presidential Veto, of course, so they have to have a 2/3 majority).

The US Constituion clearly states the President is the CinC of the US Armed forces. It also, clearly states that congress has the ability to declare war not make war, which if anything, is a political statement. History has proven that war need not be declared for it to be waged. The power to declare war does not permit Congress to usurp the CinC's power concerning military deployments that do not even arguably constitute the initiation of "war." That, to me, seems unconstitional.

The War Powers Resolution limits the President's constiuntional power to only a few circumstances. [again, to me, unconstitional] It does not even allow the POTUS to deter an imminent attack on the United States. Section 1541(c) only states he can act if there has been an attack.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

There are also some major problems with (3) as American citizens are wont to travel outside of the US, its territories or possessions and not all are members of the armed forces. It would not be very reasonable to allow 500 or so Americans that have been taken hostage to die simply because we have to summon congress back from their states to enact legislation to take action in order to free them. Ford knows a situation very similar to this. What good about denying the President any authority to rescue American civilians from terrorist attacks outside the territorial limits of the US? And this, well - this seems highly impractical.

First of all, the War Powers Act was written after Vietnam, so Roosevelt and Johnson were not subject to it, and Clinton was in a minor conflict with few ground troops commited, we used our Air Craft instead of troops.

First of all, it is actually the "War Powers Resolution."

Secondly, yes you are correct, I mistakely wrote Roosevelt and Johnson.

As for Clinton, your justification is weak. He ignored the WPR for Haiti and Kosovo. However, I mentioned him with thoughts of Haiti, I assume you were talking about Kosovo - nonetheless, troops WERE deployed there, they were engaged in hostilities. Btw, who do you think flies that "air craft", robots? And we are still there today.

Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton have all ignored/floundered their way around the WPR during their admins.

(Btw, good topic, however, I see that you have not made an introduction in the Welcoming Center. Do so before you post again, and read the forum rules, all members are required to give a brief intro of themselves.)

 

[Damien435]

The public and congress don't tend to think of air craft as people, even former pilots will tell you, in war they do not think of them as enemy pilots, but just that they are shooting down an enemy plane. Even when they do shoot down a plane, it is called a kill, but they do not say they killed an enemy pilot, but that they killed an enemy plane. And a plane is harder to shoot down than it is to stick a gun out the window and take a pot shot at a soldier walking down the street.

 

[RnderSafe]

The public and congress don't tend to think of air craft as people, even former pilots will tell you, in war they do not think of them as enemy pilots, but just that they are shooting down an enemy plane. Even when they do shoot down a plane, it is called a kill, but they do not say they killed an enemy pilot, but that they killed an enemy plane. And a plane is harder to shoot down than it is to stick a gun out the window and take a pot shot at a soldier walking down the street.

Oh ok, so that would explain why many Congressmen brought suit against Clinton for violating the WPR??????

 

[Damien435]

Oh ok, so that would explain why many Congressmen brought suit against Clinton for violating the WPR??????

Sorry, see I was not very old during Kosovo so I do not remember anything from it, this must be a mute point then, I believe our troops stayed over anyways, right? So that means that the president would have already defyed the WPR and nothing happened.

 

[RnderSafe]

Sorry, see I was not very old during Kosovo so I do not remember anything from it, this must be a mute point then, I believe our troops stayed over anyways, right? So that means that the president would have already defyed the WPR and nothing happened.

That is correct, but Clinton was not the first. Ford was.

 

[Damien435]

I am not real aware of any uses of the WPR against the president in the past, my US History teacher thinks it is a joke and that it will last minutes in the supreme court before being tossed out. He views it as an effort by Congress to gain more power over the president, while also hopefully decreasing the number of deaths of US Service Men overseas.