Fighting words: Who gets to declare war?

By Leo Shane III
Stars and Stripes Mideast edition
Thursday, July 10, 2008


WASHINGTON — No one is really sure who gets to decide when the United States goes to war, according to former Secretary of State James Baker.

"Of course, our Constitution gives our president the powers of commander in chief," he told reporters Tuesday. "But Congress has the power of the purse, and the power to declare war.

"But history indicates that the president and Congress have often disagreed about their respective roles in the decision to go to war."

This week, an independent panel led by Baker, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher and other retired statesmen urged Congress and the president to adopt a new plan governing U.S. war powers, clarifying the process for all overseas military operations.

The commission, established by the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs, said the current system leaves too much uncertainty as to whom the president needs to consult before committing troops, when Congress needs to weigh in and how lawmakers can best stay informed of threats worldwide.

"Of all the agonizing decisions the nation must make, perhaps the most fateful of all is the decision to go to war," Christopher said. "We think this will greatly increase the cooperation between Congress and the president on the way to war, and this is something that the American people … very much want."

An inherent conflict
At the heart of the issue is confusion over how the Constitution lays out war powers.

The framers wrote in the Constitution that Congress has the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to repel invasions, but they also named the president as commander in chief, giving him the power to order the armed forces to defend the country.

Nowhere do they specify whose power trumps the other. Over the years both the executive and legislative branches have claimed sole authority.

The commission noted that federal courts have refused to enter the debate.

In 1973, Congress tried to resolve the constitutional divide through a War Powers Resolution, requiring the president to end combat operations overseas within 90 days unless Congress approves the fighting.

But Baker and critics said that law has been largely ineffective, since every president since Richard Nixon has deemed the law an unconstitutional breach of presidential powers. None has filed the paperwork to start the 90-day timeline, and Congress has not challenged the White House in court.

In the case of Iraq, Congress in 2002 approved a measure to allow President Bush to use force if Saddam Hussein refused to comply with United Nations weapons restrictions.

Opposition lawmakers later complained that they were poorly informed and felt Bush overstepped his authority to declare war, and have sought to put time lines and restrictions on forces ever since.

The way forward
The commission’s new plan would establish a joint congressional committee to be the point of consultation for the president before and during any overseas military action.

For any combat operation overseas expected to last more than a week, the president would be required to inform Congress within three days of committing troops. The House and the Senate would vote on a resolution supporting or opposing the action within 30 days of the start of fighting.

If lawmakers oppose it, the resolution could be vetoed by the president like any other piece of legislation, or the president could bring military forces back home.

W. Taylor Reveley, commission member and interim president of the College of William and Mary, said the new plan relies on Congress and the president acting "for the good of the country" rather than dodging timelines for political gain.

But commission members emphasized that simply having a standing committee in Congress to act as a consistent adviser for the president will be a significant change from the current, open-ended consultation requirement for the White House.

"In the (current) war powers bill, there’s no designation for who the president [must consult with]," said Lee Hamilton, commission member who spent 34 years as a representative from Indiana. "Consulting with Congress is an enormously difficult task. You have 535 members, and presidents don’t really know, beyond certain leaders, where to go."

Baker said nothing in the proposal touches the constitutionality issues of who is the ultimate decider in declaring war. Instead, it’s a compromise, making sure that both sides are fully aware and active when the decision is made.

Commission members said they hope the issue will come to a vote before Congress early next year, once a new administration is in the White House.

Members of Congress and both presidential campaigns were consulted in putting together the language, Baker said, but he would not say whether any of those groups had committed to the changes.

http://www.stripes.com/articleprint.asp?section=104&article=56078

I can see some gritting their teeth over the possible loss of power.

The Constitution says

Article I, Section VIII

The Congress shall have power … to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water …

Article II, Section II

The 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 …

Source: U.S. Constitution

Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

If it ain't broke don't fix it; the system has served our Nation just fine over the years, why put new guidelines in place that could backfire???



The CinC does NOT need Congressional approval to send troops off to combat, even though it is up to Congress to declare the war, as well as fund the mission. . .If the house and the senate decide not to declare war or fund the mission, the war ends, there is NO NEED to change this guideline that the founders set for a reason!

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Really. And just what crime would he be comitting?(sp?) Be specific for us Constitutional retards.

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Really. And just what crime would he be comitting?(sp?) Be specific for us Constitutional retards.

Heh, heh, heh...you said retards...

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

quote:

Originally posted by mmulder67:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Really. And just what crime would he be comitting?(sp?) Be specific for us Constitutional retards.

Heh, heh, heh...you said retards...

Oh no! *GASP* The derogotory word rule!

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

Isn't that what I said?

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

The country is attacked by China. Congress declares war, the President says, screw you, I refuse to fight this war.

What pray tell is this act?

While the example that was given, "Congress declares war on Mexico," was thrown out as an example, one would assume they had good reason to make such a declaration. The President is the Executive officer in this case. A Declaration of War is a veto proof declaration, because it needs a two thirds majority.

Either he carries out the war, resigns, or is impeached.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by IHAWKER:
The Constitution says

Article I, Section VIII

The Congress shall have power … to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water …

Article II, Section II

The 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 …

Source: U.S. Constitution

Basically it looks like the congress gets to make an Army and then it is under the President.

This was written when the intent was to have no standing army. Congress pretty much put the ball in the Presidents court when they created and maintained a standing army.

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatt:

quote:

Originally posted by IHAWKER:
The Constitution says

Article I, Section VIII

The Congress shall have power … to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water …

Article II, Section II

The 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 …

Source: U.S. Constitution

Basically it looks like the congress gets to make an Army and then it is under the President.

This was written when the intent was to have no standing army. Congress pretty much put the ball in the Presidents court when they created and maintained a standing army.

I don't know about "intent," but we had a standing Army at the time the Constitution was written. Those who ONLY wanted a militia were out debated before the Convention.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

The country is attacked by China. Congress declares war, the President says, screw you, I refuse to fight this war.

What pray tell is this act?

While the example that was given, "Congress declares war on Mexico," was thrown out as an example, one would assume they had good reason to make such a declaration. The President is the Executive officer in this case. A Declaration of War is a veto proof declaration, because it needs a two thirds majority.

Either he carries out the war, resigns, or is impeached.

Dave

The question had nothing to do with what is sensible. The comment was made about the legality of the president refusing to deploy after Congress declares war. Using the same shade you just did, say that Congress decides that we need to declare war on Bosnia because of all the barbarity. It doesn't really affect us one way or the other and the president says no, I will not deploy. Where is the law that makes that illegal?

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

The country is attacked by China. Congress declares war, the President says, screw you, I refuse to fight this war.

What pray tell is this act?

While the example that was given, "Congress declares war on Mexico," was thrown out as an example, one would assume they had good reason to make such a declaration. The President is the Executive officer in this case. A Declaration of War is a veto proof declaration, because it needs a two thirds majority.

Either he carries out the war, resigns, or is impeached.

Dave

The question had nothing to do with what is sensible. The comment was made about the legality of the president refusing to deploy after Congress declares war. Using the same shade you just did, say that Congress decides that we need to declare war on Bosnia because of all the barbarity. It doesn't really affect us one way or the other and the president says no, I will not deploy. Where is the law that makes that illegal?

----------------------
It's not a question of "illegal," nor is it a question of "sensible." It is a matter of common sense and understanding where the power lies.

Who declares war? Both houses of Congress. Now, under the Constitution presumably the President can veto a declaration of war just like any other legislation. (This has never been tested since all formal declarations of war by the U.S. Congress have occurred based on a request from the President.) So far, no problem.

Let's suppose Congress overrides the veto and we have a Congressional declaration of War. There's nothing concrete that requires the POTUS/CIC to do anything.

But here's where the issue of practicality comes in. Who decides if the President has committed an impeachable offense? The House. The same House that passed a declaration of war over a Presidential veto.

(You can shout all you want about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors but it will do you no good. Plenty of folks argued about that when Clinton was impeached but the ONLY opinion that mattered was the one shared by the majority of the members of the House.)

And who tries an impeached President? The Senate. The same Senate that overrode a Presidential veto to make a declaration of War.

You don't need to site a statute or agree on the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, you only need to understand where the power is.

If a President refused to fulfill his or her role as CIC in response to a declaration of war that resulted from an override of a Presidential veto, we'd have a serious situation of battling egos and if the Congress wanted to, the President would be history.

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

The country is attacked by China. Congress declares war, the President says, screw you, I refuse to fight this war.

What pray tell is this act?

While the example that was given, "Congress declares war on Mexico," was thrown out as an example, one would assume they had good reason to make such a declaration. The President is the Executive officer in this case. A Declaration of War is a veto proof declaration, because it needs a two thirds majority.

Either he carries out the war, resigns, or is impeached.

Dave

The question had nothing to do with what is sensible. The comment was made about the legality of the president refusing to deploy after Congress declares war. Using the same shade you just did, say that Congress decides that we need to declare war on Bosnia because of all the barbarity. It doesn't really affect us one way or the other and the president says no, I will not deploy. Where is the law that makes that illegal?

----------------------
It's not a question of "illegal," nor is it a question of "sensible." It is a matter of common sense and understanding where the power lies.

Who declares war? Both houses of Congress. Now, under the Constitution presumably the President can veto a declaration of war just like any other legislation. (This has never been tested since all formal declarations of war by the U.S. Congress have occurred based on a request from the President.) So far, no problem.

Let's suppose Congress overrides the veto and we have a Congressional declaration of War. There's nothing concrete that requires the POTUS/CIC to do anything.

But here's where the issue of practicality comes in. Who decides if the President has committed an impeachable offense? The House. The same House that passed a declaration of war over a Presidential veto.

(You can shout all you want about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors but it will do you no good. Plenty of folks argued about that when Clinton was impeached but the ONLY opinion that mattered was the one shared by the majority of the members of the House.)

And who tries an impeached President? The Senate. The same Senate that overrode a Presidential veto to make a declaration of War.

You don't need to site a statute or agree on the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, you only need to understand where the power is.

If a President refused to fulfill his or her role as CIC in response to a declaration of war that resulted from an override of a Presidential veto, we'd have a serious situation of battling egos and if the Congress wanted to, the President would be history.

That was my question - whether the above poster was correct in saying he didn't think a presidential refusal was legal. I know of no such law that would make it illegal. As far as my use of the term sensible, I deliberately used that word because of the touchiness of using the term "common sense" which seems less common with each passing day.

I understand full well the process of impeachment and trial. As a constitutional strict constructionist, I would demand that before articles of impeachment could be drawn up there be a codified violation on record, otherwise the articles would be relegated to the circular file. If the articles are too vague, we run the risk of a court overturning the impeachment and/or trial in the same fashion as that of the Alcee Hastings conviction. It would have only been a huge waste of time to tilt at that windmill.

Thank you for answering the legality question.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

The country is attacked by China. Congress declares war, the President says, screw you, I refuse to fight this war.

What pray tell is this act?

While the example that was given, "Congress declares war on Mexico," was thrown out as an example, one would assume they had good reason to make such a declaration. The President is the Executive officer in this case. A Declaration of War is a veto proof declaration, because it needs a two thirds majority.

Either he carries out the war, resigns, or is impeached.

Dave

The question had nothing to do with what is sensible. The comment was made about the legality of the president refusing to deploy after Congress declares war. Using the same shade you just did, say that Congress decides that we need to declare war on Bosnia because of all the barbarity. It doesn't really affect us one way or the other and the president says no, I will not deploy. Where is the law that makes that illegal?

----------------------
It's not a question of "illegal," nor is it a question of "sensible." It is a matter of common sense and understanding where the power lies.

Who declares war? Both houses of Congress. Now, under the Constitution presumably the President can veto a declaration of war just like any other legislation. (This has never been tested since all formal declarations of war by the U.S. Congress have occurred based on a request from the President.) So far, no problem.

Let's suppose Congress overrides the veto and we have a Congressional declaration of War. There's nothing concrete that requires the POTUS/CIC to do anything.

But here's where the issue of practicality comes in. Who decides if the President has committed an impeachable offense? The House. The same House that passed a declaration of war over a Presidential veto.

(You can shout all you want about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors but it will do you no good. Plenty of folks argued about that when Clinton was impeached but the ONLY opinion that mattered was the one shared by the majority of the members of the House.)

And who tries an impeached President? The Senate. The same Senate that overrode a Presidential veto to make a declaration of War.

You don't need to site a statute or agree on the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, you only need to understand where the power is.

If a President refused to fulfill his or her role as CIC in response to a declaration of war that resulted from an override of a Presidential veto, we'd have a serious situation of battling egos and if the Congress wanted to, the President would be history.

That was my question - whether the above poster was correct in saying he didn't think a presidential refusal was legal. I know of no such law that would make it illegal. As far as my use of the term sensible, I deliberately used that word because of the touchiness of using the term "common sense" which seems less common with each passing day.

I understand full well the process of impeachment and trial. As a constitutional strict constructionist, I would demand that before articles of impeachment could be drawn up there be a codified violation on record, otherwise the articles would be relegated to the circular file. If the articles are too vague, we run the risk of a court overturning the impeachment and/or trial in the same fashion as that of the Alcee Hastings conviction. It would have only been a huge waste of time to tilt at that windmill.

Thank you for answering the legality question.

------------------------------
You should read Nixon v. United States. holding that the federal courst do NOT have jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters. This is one case holding as an example of the political question doctrine.

The initial ruling overtuning Hastings impeachment (which was based not on the quality of the alleged crime but on alleged due process/procedural error) was vacated by Nixon v. US and his conviction and removal were upheld.

The power of Presidential impeachment is solely in the hands of Congress. If they determine that the Constitution says the President MUST wage war as CIC in response to a Congressional declaration of war, then if the President refuses to do so, it is de facto "illegal."

I wasn't ssaying it's not illegal. (Nor am I saying it is.) I'm saying that determination is based on what the Constitution means in delegating powers regarding war between Congress and Executive AS INTERPRETED BY THE CONGRESS . . . because the power to impeach lies with Congress (and only Congress).

You, as "a constitutional strict constructionist, [could] demand that before articles of impeachment could be drawn up there be a codified violation on record," and that and $4.50 would get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The only ones empowered to make such a demand are the members of the US House of Representatives and no one has the pwoer to review or second guess the House's conclusion.

(BTW - How'd the job interview go?]

The Notion that we should allow one person to dicate matters of War and Peace are embraced in Stalinist Russia, and Nazi Germany....Not the United States...

The president can refuse to command agressively.
Congress can refuse to pay for salaries and munitions.

Looks to me that both the legislative and the executive have and retain the power to stop any war, no matter who initiated it.

And that fits rather well with the general perception of war as something that should be awoided, which is quite strong, inbetween these unfortunate epidemics of macho patriotic braggadio.

regards JakobA

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

Well lets carry that thought even further. What if the president as cic ordered the military into combat and the Generals refused the order?
Thats an interesting concept also.

The constitution clearly spells out who has the authority to declare war. The CIC has alway had the authority to respond to iminent Threats or attacks in the interest of national security as the CIC. But he has a matter days to appear before and get approval from congress.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
The question had nothing to do with what is sensible. The comment was made about the legality of the president refusing to deploy after Congress declares war. Using the same shade you just did, say that Congress decides that we need to declare war on Bosnia because of all the barbarity. It doesn't really affect us one way or the other and the president says no, I will not deploy. Where is the law that makes that illegal?

I agree it's an odd scenario, and as far as I know, has never come close to happening. But the President is ONLY commander in chief of the armed forces, he is NOT the commander in chief of the country. The Constitution gives the right to decide war to Congress, not the President. he is the "Executive" branch.

So if that odd scenario came up, he would be abdicating his job as military commander by refusing to "follow orders."

As I said, you need a two thirds vote to declare war. Congress would obviously impeach him. Why not? They have to votes? All they would have to do is declare his act a high crime and misdeameanor. Just as they declared a BJ a high crime and misdeamenor. Impeachment is ultimately a "political act," and if Congress had the votes to declare a war, they sure wont be shy about impeaching whomever stands in the way of that.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

Or if he were declared incapable of continuing his term By the congress. Like if he became Ill or insane or suffered a breakdown and could no longer perform his duties. Claiming and displaying that he is not answerable to other branches of government would be an impeachable offense since he would be declaring dictatorship.

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by skinman13:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Pretend, for example, that the Congress declared war on Mexico, but the Commander In Chief refused to order troops into combat.


Interesting twist, eh?

The president cannot legally refuse...and that would lead to his or her impeachment

Only if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors." I have never heard of any law that requires the president to adhere to Congress's decision to go to war. Please reference a law (statute, precedent, etc.) that would support that contention. I would certainly like to know it there is one.

The country is attacked by China. Congress declares war, the President says, screw you, I refuse to fight this war.

What pray tell is this act?

While the example that was given, "Congress declares war on Mexico," was thrown out as an example, one would assume they had good reason to make such a declaration. The President is the Executive officer in this case. A Declaration of War is a veto proof declaration, because it needs a two thirds majority.

Either he carries out the war, resigns, or is impeached.

Dave

The question had nothing to do with what is sensible. The comment was made about the legality of the president refusing to deploy after Congress declares war. Using the same shade you just did, say that Congress decides that we need to declare war on Bosnia because of all the barbarity. It doesn't really affect us one way or the other and the president says no, I will not deploy. Where is the law that makes that illegal?

----------------------
It's not a question of "illegal," nor is it a question of "sensible." It is a matter of common sense and understanding where the power lies.

Who declares war? Both houses of Congress. Now, under the Constitution presumably the President can veto a declaration of war just like any other legislation. (This has never been tested since all formal declarations of war by the U.S. Congress have occurred based on a request from the President.) So far, no problem.

Let's suppose Congress overrides the veto and we have a Congressional declaration of War. There's nothing concrete that requires the POTUS/CIC to do anything.

But here's where the issue of practicality comes in. Who decides if the President has committed an impeachable offense? The House. The same House that passed a declaration of war over a Presidential veto.

(You can shout all you want about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors but it will do you no good. Plenty of folks argued about that when Clinton was impeached but the ONLY opinion that mattered was the one shared by the majority of the members of the House.)

And who tries an impeached President? The Senate. The same Senate that overrode a Presidential veto to make a declaration of War.

You don't need to site a statute or agree on the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, you only need to understand where the power is.

If a President refused to fulfill his or her role as CIC in response to a declaration of war that resulted from an override of a Presidential veto, we'd have a serious situation of battling egos and if the Congress wanted to, the President would be history.

That was my question - whether the above poster was correct in saying he didn't think a presidential refusal was legal. I know of no such law that would make it illegal. As far as my use of the term sensible, I deliberately used that word because of the touchiness of using the term "common sense" which seems less common with each passing day.

I understand full well the process of impeachment and trial. As a constitutional strict constructionist, I would demand that before articles of impeachment could be drawn up there be a codified violation on record, otherwise the articles would be relegated to the circular file. If the articles are too vague, we run the risk of a court overturning the impeachment and/or trial in the same fashion as that of the Alcee Hastings conviction. It would have only been a huge waste of time to tilt at that windmill.

Thank you for answering the legality question.

------------------------------
You should read Nixon v. United States. holding that the federal courst do NOT have jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters. This is one case holding as an example of the political question doctrine.

The initial ruling overtuning Hastings impeachment (which was based not on the quality of the alleged crime but on alleged due process/procedural error) was vacated by Nixon v. US and his conviction and removal were upheld.

The power of Presidential impeachment is solely in the hands of Congress. If they determine that the Constitution says the President MUST wage war as CIC in response to a Congressional declaration of war, then if the President refuses to do so, it is de facto "illegal."

I wasn't ssaying it's not illegal. (Nor am I saying it is.) I'm saying that determination is based on what the Constitution means in delegating powers regarding war between Congress and Executive AS INTERPRETED BY THE CONGRESS . . . because the power to impeach lies with Congress (and only Congress).

You, as "a constitutional strict constructionist, [could] demand that before articles of impeachment could be drawn up there be a codified violation on record," and that and $4.50 would get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The only ones empowered to make such a demand are the members of the US House of Representatives and no one has the pwoer to review or second guess the House's conclusion.

(BTW - How'd the job interview go?]

Yeah, the Courts have no juridiction over impeachment. Which is only logical, since Judges can also be impeached. The Federalist papers actually go into why this is so, pointing out that Impeachment is a "Political" process.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:


(BTW - How'd the job interview go?]

The recruiter said she would call me after she gets back to her office next week sometime.
She reviewed my resume but had overlooked that I had included foreign languages in my skills. But the languages I speak are not what her department are looking for, nor are they looking for a Master's Degree holder. She said, however that one of her peer departments is looking for the skills and education I possess. So she said that she was going to give that recruiter a head's up and take my resume.

There are other issues that I need to address with her at a later date, as well. So she said we could discuss them when she calls me.

The hell of it is that my lady friend went with me to the briefing session held and was told that she would have no problem whatsoever because she has a Master's in Library Science and they are looking for librarians with her quals. And she just retired after 30 years of teaching elementary school. Either way, it looks as though we may be moving to DC soon.

But keep your fingers crossed.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:


(BTW - How'd the job interview go?]

The recruiter said she would call me after she gets back to her office next week sometime.
She reviewed my resume but had overlooked that I had included foreign languages in my skills. But the languages I speak are not what her department are looking for, nor are they looking for a Master's Degree holder. She said, however that one of her peer departments is looking for the skills and education I possess. So she said that she was going to give that recruiter a head's up and take my resume.

There are other issues that I need to address with her at a later date, as well. So she said we could discuss them when she calls me.

The hell of it is that my lady friend went with me to the briefing session held and was told that she would have no problem whatsoever because she has a Master's in Library Science and they are looking for librarians with her quals. And she just retired after 30 years of teaching elementary school. Either way, it looks as though we may be moving to DC soon.

But keep your fingers crossed.

Oh! Neat, hope everything works out. Didn't you know better to study Urdu, and Tagalog as foreign languages?

Whereas I speak flawless Brooklynese, as well as English.

Dave

Of the people by the people and for the people are really the keywords in a representative Republic. A 2/3s vote by congress is a vote by the people. The President is not a dictator he is only a servant of the people. So by ignoring the will of the congress he is ignoring the will of the people and thus effectively declaring himself a dictator and that is an impeachable offense. The different branches of gov are the cks and balances of the system.

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:


(BTW - How'd the job interview go?]

The recruiter said she would call me after she gets back to her office next week sometime.
She reviewed my resume but had overlooked that I had included foreign languages in my skills. But the languages I speak are not what her department are looking for, nor are they looking for a Master's Degree holder. She said, however that one of her peer departments is looking for the skills and education I possess. So she said that she was going to give that recruiter a head's up and take my resume.

There are other issues that I need to address with her at a later date, as well. So she said we could discuss them when she calls me.

The hell of it is that my lady friend went with me to the briefing session held and was told that she would have no problem whatsoever because she has a Master's in Library Science and they are looking for librarians with her quals. And she just retired after 30 years of teaching elementary school. Either way, it looks as though we may be moving to DC soon.

But keep your fingers crossed.

Oh! Neat, hope everything works out. Didn't you know better to study Urdu, and Tagalog as foreign languages?

Whereas I speak flawless Brooklynese, as well as English.

Dave

Urdu and Pashtu are two of the languages they are looking for. I speak Spanish and Russian. No fit.

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:
If it ain't broke don't fix it; the system has served our Nation just fine over the years, why put new guidelines in place that could backfire???

I disagree - the waters have become very muddied. There have only been five declared wars in our nation's history, but there have been numerous cases of the President committing troops to what became "wars in everything but name".

quote:

The CinC does NOT need Congressional approval to send troops off to combat

According to the Constitution he does, but according to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 he has 60 days until Congressional approval is required.

The basic problem is that Congress is more than happy to abrogate their Constitutional authority in this regard, because a vote for or against declaring war would be a hot-but ton election issue for many of them. Just look at the quandary faced by so many Democrats with the vote authorizing force in Iraq - pushing for that vote prior to mid-term elections was a masterful Karl Rove-like stroke, because Dems who were opposed to the war (or at least depended on their core constituency, who was opposed to it) had to consider how a "No" vote would hurt their re-election chances. So look how they've had to dissemble and tap-dance to explain their "yes" vote once the war became hugely unpopular.

Face it, people - the President gets away with nearly limitless war powers in contravention of the Constitution because Congress doesn't have the guts to assert its authority, because voting on a war declaration makes it harder for them to pander to both sides.

One point worth bearing in mind:

Any power or authority not specifically delineated in the Constitution that you grant to a President you like, you also by default and precedent give that power/authority to one you may not like.

That is why we need to be very careful in what powers outside those given in the Constitution we give to ANY President.

A good example is the FISA mess:

While some of you may support President Bush having the authority to eavesdrop on you without a warrant, would you trust Obama with the same authority? If not then too bad - you've already done it.

Another one is the mess over the GWOT "detainees" at Guantanamo and other secret prisons. In agreeing to that one, you've given Obama the same authority to hold those whom his administration deems to be "potential terrorists" indefinitely outside the law.

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
One point worth bearing in mind:

Any power or authority not specifically delineated in the Constitution that you grant to a President you like, you also by default and precedent give that power/authority to one you may not like.

That is why we need to be very careful in what powers outside those given in the Constitution we give to ANY President.

A good example is the FISA mess:

While some of you may support President Bush having the authority to eavesdrop on you without a warrant, would you trust Obama with the same authority? If not then too bad - you've already done it.

Another one is the mess over the GWOT "detainees" at Guantanamo and other secret prisons. In agreeing to that one, you've given Obama the same authority to hold those whom his administration deems to be "potential terrorists" indefinitely outside the law.

Yeah, that's the problem with precedents, they always come back to bite you. I was sort of rooting for the Republicans to use the "Nuclear option" on the debate to confirm judges.

What would they do if the Democrats really win back the Senate? No more filibuster, and the screams of outrage would have been deafening.

Of course, as usual, the Dems folded...

It's been a long, and so far losing struggle to contain Presidential Powers. To a great degree, it's because the other side can't wait to have them. It's really a shameful act by both parties.

Dave