War Powers Act of
1973
The War Powers Act can trace its origins to the
conflict in Viet Nam in the 1960's. By
the late 60's, many members of Congress had withdrawn what support of the war
they had earlier shown. The Congress
was ruled by the Democrats, whereas there was a new Republican president,
Richard Nixon.
The proper name of
this Law is the War Powers Resolution.
While commonly referred to as the War Powers Act, that is actually an
older law intended to define the limits of allowable trade with enemy states
during time of war.
In 1973, Congress
passed the War Powers Act, which was designed to restrict presidential
war-making powers. Although President
Nixon vetoed the bill, his standing with Congress had been recently hurt by the
Watergate scandal, and they voted to override the veto.
There are four provisions of the
Act:
- In the absence of a congressional declaration of war,
the president can commit armed forces to hostilities or to
"situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances" only:
- To repel an armed attack on the United States or to
forestall the "direct and imminent threat of such an attack."
- To repel an armed attack against U.S. armed forces
outside the United States or to forestall the threat of such attack.
- To protect and evacuate U.S. citizens and nationals
in another country if their lives are threatened.
- The president must report promptly to Congress the
commitment of forces for such purposes.
- Involvement of U.S. forces must be no longer than
sixty days unless Congress authorizes their continued use by specific
legislation.
- Congress can end a presidential commitment by
resolution, an action that does not require the president's signature.
The obvious
potential constitutional conflict is that the Act seems to grant to Congress
the ability to command troops, a power granted specifically to the president by
the Constitution. Some feel that the
president is under no obligation to follow the Act, either Constitutionally or
politically, or at the least that the Act will not be enough to stop a
president determined to commit troops.
It seems that the executive branch as a whole
agrees with the above sentiment. Every
president since its adoption into law has declared the War Powers Resolution
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court,
through a tangentially related case, has seemingly struck down the 'legislative
veto' embodied in Section 5(c) of the Resolution in the case INS v. Chadha
(1983). The applicability of this
ruling in this particular case has not been tested, however.
In every
instance since the act was passed, the President has requested and received
authorization for the use of force (though not a formal declaration of war)
consistent with the provisions of the resolution. Each of the presidential
reports to Congress have been carefully written to state that they are
"consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than
"pursuant to." This clearly
displays the executive stance that the Resolution is unconsitutional.
One of the main arguments against the
constitutionality of the War Powers Act is that the Congress only has the power
to declare (formal) war, and to fund the military forces. The President is specifically the Commander
in Chief of the Armed Forces, and should have the final say over their
activities.
The act was intended to serve as a new check and
balance on the power of the President to commit the United States to military
action. It has been attempted to be
justified by the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war under
Article One. It usefulness is in
question, however, considering both its shaky constitutionality and the fact
that the legislature has continued to defer to the executive when decisions
come down regarding the placement and command of troops in conflict.
Works Cited
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia – War Powers
Resolution. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution>
Politics in
America textbook pp420-421
Resolution
text: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html
Anti-WPR
stance: http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/articles_bush_vs_congress.shtml