Tension from Competing Powers: Reconciling the President’s Power as Commander in Chief vs. Congressional Power to Declare War.
The recent military action taken by President Donald Trump against Iran have once again brought attention to the ongoing debate regarding the legitimacy and constitutionality of the President's power to initiate and execute military action without an official congressional declaration of war. The tension arises from the competition between the power conferred to the President as Commander in Chief, vs. that of Congress to declare war, and whether the President can execute military action without prior Congressional approval.
The short answer is yes. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” This clause, which is often referred to as the Commander in Chief clause grants the president supreme operational command over the military. As Commander in Chief, the president has the constitutional authority to direct military strategy, oversee troop deployment and respond to threats against the nation.
This Presidential power has been exercised by a number of presidents throughout U.S. history. President Harry S. Truman for example, committed U.S. forces to the Korean peninsula under the authority of a United Nations resolution, without any formal declaration from Congress. In fact, Congress never officially declared war on Korea, even though President Truman committed hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops during a 3-year period that resulted in 35,000 deaths.
Like his predecessor, President Lindon B. Johnson committed more than 500,000 troops to the Vietnam conflict without a formal Congressional declaration of war. The “Vietnam War” was never a war. It was technically classified as a "police action" from a constitutional perspective. Close to 60,000 American soldiers lost their lives in that conflict.
Tension from Competing Powers
Where does the tension come from? Looking to the past for answers, the vision of the Framers was to prevent tyranny; whether that came from the many, or from one individual. They feared a king-like President that might abuse his power as Commander in Chief and unilaterally declare war on other nations. On the other hand, they were concerned about a weak President who would not be able to execute his authority as Commander in Chief, or fulfill his Oath to “Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States” (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1).
The War Powers Resolution of 1973, also known as the War Powers Act, reconciles these competing tensions by serving as a check on Presidential "War Powers" by establishing a framework that makes it possible for the President to execute his “Commander in Chief” powers and fulfill his constitutional oath, while preserving constitutional legitimacy.
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 during the Nixon Administration. The Resolution sought to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States regarding the President’s power as Commander in Chief, and his authority and constitutional mandate to initiate military actions without prior approval or authorization from Congress. The War Powers Resolution requires that the President whenever possible, consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into "situations where imminent involvement is clearly indicated by the circumstances." It further provides that in the absence of a declaration of war by the Congress, any use or deployment of U.S. armed forces be reported to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, in writing, within 48 hours of the action.
Discussion
Above all, the Framers were concerned with tyranny; either from the majority or from one individual. They were weary of monarchical power and thus saw to it that the President would not have absolute power to unilaterally declare war on another nation. At the same time, the Framers also envisioned a strong President who would be able to execute his authority as Commander in Chief and fulfill his Oath to “Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States”. Staying true to the spirit of the Framers, Congress passed the War Powers Act, not to eliminate the president’s authority as Commander in Chief, but rather to establish a procedural framework for the execution of that power. The War Powers Act is that check between the competing congressional power found in Article I and the Presidential power in Article II, ensuring that legislative oversight and constitutional integrity are preserved.
