The Corner

War Powers Debate

I’ve enjoyed Rich’s column and Jeffrey Anderson’s responsive essay this morning on the War Powers Act (WPA) and the fact that President Obama has effectively killed it with his Libya war. But I continue to think, as argued in this column, that the WPA is a sideshow. Focusing too much attention on it — other than for the purpose of yet again demonstrating the gulf between Obama campaign rhetoric and Obama governance — is counterproductive. The issues are whether what we are doing in Libya is constitutionally legitimate and whether it serves the national interests, not whether Obama is in compliance with 60-day time limits, etc. 

Prof. Anderson correctly outlines some of the WPA’s policy flaws, particularly the fact that it actually encourages presidents to take unilateral military action — which Anderson describes as “grant[ing] the president too much authority, not too little.” What makes the WPA constitutionally problematic, though, is mostly its legislative veto provision, which purports to enable Congress to direct the president to withdraw forces by a joint resolution. (See this 2004 CRS analysis, here.) Joint resolutions are not binding law because, under the Constitution, law can only be enacted if the president signs a bill passed by both houses of Congress, or if Congress overrides a presidential veto of that bill by the required super-majority. (As Rich points out, the veto-override is how the WPA was enacted in the first place.) Putting aside the knottier question whether Congress has the authority to order a president to withdraw forces (i.e., could Congress constitutionally direct a president to withdraw forces by overriding the presidential veto of a bill directing him to do so?), Congress certainly cannot direct a president to do anything by a mere resolution.

Nevertheless, the fact that the WPA is a nullity (and now a dead letter thanks to Obama’s conduct) does not help us resolve the underlying issue: Does the Constitution empower a president to initiate a war under circumstances where the United States has not been threatened, much less attacked, and there are no vital U.S. interests at stake?

Rich seems contend that it does, and asserts that “The president’s inherent powers as commander in chief do not depend on affirmative acts of Congress.” The quoted proposition is surely true, but it begs the question of what the president’s inherent powers are — i.e., what is his Article II authority, including the powers of commander in chief? The issue is not whether the president needs to be in compliance with the WPA; it is whether the Constitution empowers him to dispatch forces whenever he pleases. And there is clearly a difference between raw power and constitutional authority. That is, as commander in chief, the president clearly has the power to invade anyplace he chooses — including, say, Canada, or the state of New Jersey. But he obviously doesn’t have the authority to do that.

Prof. Anderson’s position is not easily nailed down, either. He seems to argue, mostly in reliance on Justice Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, that the president may not conduct war unless Congress authorizes it. Yet, although President Reagan’s attack on Libya would violate this principle, Anderson grants Reagan an exception on the curious ground “that it was a one-time strike that required the element of surprise and was not a precursor to a larger war.” It can never be known with certainty that a seemingly limited strike will not snowball into a larger conflict (see, e.g., Sarajevo 1914). Moreover, just as Rich observes that the WPA does not make exceptions for “piddling” wars, so does the Constitution not limit Congress’s war powers to the declaration of only big wars. That aside, though, we can safely assume that if Prof. Anderson believes Reagan’s Libya attack was legitimate, he would endorse the generally accepted view that presidents have inherent authority, absent any approval by Congress, to respond to attacks or threatened attacks against the United States, even though the Constitution does not say so (at least by anything other than inference from the powers granted by Article II). 

The bottom line, I’d submit (and I’ve argued before), is this: It is a fool’s errand to analyze this question in legal terms rather than political ones. The matter of where the Congress’s war power ends and the president’s begins is not justiciable. Moreover, it cannot be marked with legal certainty — “The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Springer v. Philippine Islands (1928).

The political branches have overlapping authorities, requiring them to work together to get important things done and to check each other to stop abusive things from being done. That is the genius of the system. When the system is working properly, the president must get Congress’s approval to initiate an unprovoked war. As a practical matter, however, the president cannot be stopped from doing this absent a strong, accountable Congress that is willing to flex its constitutional muscles — any more than, say, the Supreme Court can be stopped from some of its excesses absent a willingness by the political branches to take decisive, constitutional counter-measures. We’re a body politic, not a body legal.

Most Popular


Kamala Harris Runs for Queen

I’m going to let you in on a secret about the 2020 presidential contest: Unless unforeseen circumstances lead to a true wave election, the legislative stakes will be extremely low. The odds are heavily stacked against Democrats’ retaking the Senate, and that means that even if a Democrat wins the White House, ... Read More
Energy & Environment

The Climate Trap for Democrats

The more the climate debate changes, the more it stays the same. Polls show that the public is worried about climate change, but that doesn’t mean that it is any more ready to bear any burden or pay any price to combat it. If President Donald Trump claws his way to victory again in Pennsylvania and the ... Read More

What We’ve Learned about Jussie Smollett

It’s been a few weeks since March 26, when all charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and the actor declared that his version of events had been proven correct. How’s that going? Smollett’s celebrity defenders have gone quiet. His publicists and lawyers are dodging reporters. The @StandwithJussie ... Read More
Politics & Policy

But Why Is Guatemala Hungry?

I really, really don’t want to be on the “Nicolas Kristof Wrote Something Dumb” beat, but, Jiminy Cricket! Kristof has taken a trip to Guatemala, with a young woman from Arizona State University in tow. “My annual win-a-trip journey,” he writes. Reporting from Guatemala, he discovers that many ... Read More
White House

Sarah Sanders to Resign at End of June

Sarah Huckabee Sanders will resign from her position as White House press secretary at the end of the month, President Trump announced on Twitter Thursday afternoon. Sanders, the daughter of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, succeeded Sean ... Read More
Politics & Policy

On Painting Air Force One

And so it has come to this. Two oil tankers were just attacked in the Gulf of Oman, presumably by Iran. The United States and China are facing off in a confrontation that is about far more than trade. The southern border remains anarchic and uncontrolled. And Congress is asking: “Can I get the icon in ... Read More