The Corner

In Libya, No Declaration of War Required

Whether Obama has the constitutional authority to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya without congressional approval is not a difficult call. As commander in chief, the president has broad power to commit U.S. forces to combat operations — and presidents have exercised this power throughout our history. There are, of course, a number of constitutional limits on a president’s right to use of force, but Congress’s exclusive power to “declare war” — the focus of so much debate in this area — is far from the most important of these.

In the 18th century, a declaration of war was not always a necessary precursor to the use of force, and the Constitution’s Framers clearly understood this. As a general rule, a declaration was necessary if a state wished to claim the full international-law rights of a belligerent vis-à-vis its enemies and neutral powers, except where the conflict was purely defensive. Moreover, based on general practice among nations in the years leading up to the Constitution’s adoption, whether a declaration of war was necessary in any particular instance depended on a complex set of considerations involving, among other things, the identity of the other belligerent(s), purposes and goals, location, and the type of force (and forces) to be committed.

The Framers reserved the power to declare war to Congress so that only that body would be able to alter the legal regime governing an armed conflict, and to ensure that congressional action would be required before the United States entered major hostilities with one or more other powers. They left the president free to use force in other instances, subject to a number of other checks on his practical ability to involve the nation in armed conflict, including Congress’s authority over the budget and its power to raise and support armies.

The essentially punitive operations now underway against Qaddafi would not have required a declaration of war at the time the Constitution was adopted, and do not require such action today. We discuss this question further in the Washington Post.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Most Popular

White House

Another Warning Sign

The Mueller report is of course about Russian interference in the 2016 election and about the White House's interference in the resulting investigation. But I couldn’t help also reading the report as a window into the manner of administration that characterizes the Trump era, and therefore as another warning ... Read More
Film & TV

Jesus Is Not the Joker

Actors love to think they can play anything, but the job of any half-decent filmmaker is to tell them when they’re not right for a part. If the Rock wants to play Kurt Cobain, try to talk him out of it. Adam Sandler as King Lear is not a great match. And then there’s Joaquin Phoenix. He’s playing Jesus ... Read More

Supreme Court Mulls Citizenship Question for Census

Washington -- The oral arguments the Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday will be more decorous than the gusts of judicial testiness that blew the case up to the nation’s highest tribunal. The case, which raises arcane questions of administrative law but could have widely radiating political and policy ... Read More

What’s So Great about Western Civilization

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter), One of the things I tell new parents is something that was told to me when my daughter still had that ... Read More
White House

The Mueller Report Should Shock Our Conscience

I've finished reading the entire Mueller report, and I must confess that even as a longtime, quite open critic of Donald Trump, I was surprised at the sheer scope, scale, and brazenness of the lies, falsehoods, and misdirections detailed by the Special Counsel's Office. We've become accustomed to Trump making up ... Read More