The Power of the President to Deploy Troops

[erpowers]

There are those, mostly Republicans, who think the President can deploy troops anywhere and anytime he wants. They also believe the clause in the Constitution stating that Congress must declare war is outdated. In my opinion that is wrong. I believe the clause in the Constitution is still revelant. In addition, in terms of deploying the troops, since Congress controls the purse strings they have the ability to not fund any deployment. It seems that even if the President seeks to send troops somewhere Congress could just refuse to pay for the gas costs of sending them there. I would like for duers to discuss this issue. So what do others think?

[happyslug]

1. You must remember the War Powers Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

It sets when the President can sent troops without Congressional permission, and when such permission MUST BE SOUGHT. It as passed over Nixon's veto in 1973. Every President since Nixon has called it an unconstitutional restriction on the President power as Commander in Chief. For more see the above.

Actual Statute of the War Powers Resolution:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

More comments on the Act:
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods54.html

[provis99]

6. the War Powers Act is effectively dead

and Congress abandoned is Constitutionally mandated role in declaring war after World War 2. At this point, it looks like the President's powers to wage war are effectively unlimited, regardless of what the law or Constitution says. A law or constitution is only as good as it is enforced.

[cynatnite]

2. He is the commander in chief and has that power...

The founding fathers realized that if any president is to retain power they have to have the support of the military. That's the way it is.

[happyslug]

4. There is two problems with that approach.

First is Alexander's Hamilton's legal advice to Washington regarding attacks by French Ships on the US during the quasi-war with France of about 1792-1800. Hamilton told Washington that he had the Authority as Commander in Chief to order a defense of such French Ships on US Soil and off the Coast. The President could order US Ships to chase such French Ships out of US Waters, but if the President wanted US Ships to go after the French Ships that had attack US Soil AFTER the French Ships had exited US Waters, Washington would have to ask for Congressional Permission, for such an attack in international Waters was a Clear Act of War NOT self-Defense and only Congress could authorize such acts.

Second was Congresses and Washington Conduct during the Revolution. Actual Conduct of each Army was up to its Commander, Washington had the Authority to send some troops to other commanders, but who was those Commanders and what they did was set by CONGRESS, not Washington. Now Washington was only a Military Commander during the Revolution, the Presidency was only invented in the Constitutional Convention four years after the END OF THE WAR. When the Convention wrote the Constitution it was intended that Washington would be the First President, and he would do what he had basically done during the revolution. Thus the President can pick the officers (Who must be approved by the Senate) and assign such offices and men to whatever command, but what those commands are, how many people are in such commands, and what are the roles of such commands in the Defense of the US was to be set by Congress. In simple term in tactical terms, the President is Supreme, but in Strategic terms Congress is Supreme. Congress sets the Agenda and the priority list, the President decides HOW that Agenda and priority list is to be carried out.

[cynatnite]

5. Of course there are drawbacks...

The founding fathers didn't do much in the way of clarifying specific scenarios and didn't envision someone like bush coming in and abusing his power.

It doesn't change the fact that the president is the commander in chief and has the ultimate say in how the military is used.

[checks-n-balances]

3. I'm with you.

I like your idea about refusing to pay the fuel costs. Or aleast insist that the recipients of the GOP tax cuts foot the bill.

BTW, this has got to be the most unnecessary & wasteful military undertaking in all of world history. An unprecedented disaster of tragic proportions in countless ways.