Can War Be Waged without Presidential Support?

[ParanoiA]

Having a bit of a time trying to find both a constitutional and pragmatic answer on this one. Constitutionally, I'm thinking since congress declares war, then that's where the authority comes from, regardless of the opinion of the sitting president.

 

Pragmatically however, as commander-in-chief, he's the commander of the Army, Navy and Air Force. And therefore, without his approval, obviously he could theoretically refuse to mobilize a single piece of equipment or personnel right?

 

Provisions include taking control of state's Guard when "called into federal service" - but I don't know if that means congress commands them or the president.

 

So, is it possible to wage war without the president's consent?

[MrMongoose]

I'm fairly sure the American Civil War started without the presidents consent.

[ParanoiA]

I'm fairly sure the American Civil War started without the presidents consent.

 

Well sure, but I'm talking about fighting another country.

[mooeypoo]

Having a bit of a time trying to find both a constitutional and pragmatic answer on this one. Constitutionally, I'm thinking since congress declares war, then that's where the authority comes from, regardless of the opinion of the sitting president.

 

Pragmatically however, as commander-in-chief, he's the commander of the Army, Navy and Air Force. And therefore, without his approval, obviously he could theoretically refuse to mobilize a single piece of equipment or personnel right?

 

Provisions include taking control of state's Guard when "called into federal service" - but I don't know if that means congress commands them or the president.

 

So, is it possible to wage war without the president's consent?

I am not very well versed in American Politics, but in Political Science class this semester, we've spoken about the opposite -- going to war by circumventing (technically) the support of the Congress.

 

And, we also learned about Presidential Veto.

 

Won't that do it? I mean.. if Cogress would want to go to war, it wouldn't be able to do it without a Presidential support because the President can issue a Veto, right?

 

Again.. I'm not too well versed, but.. uhm.. it's interesting

 

~moo

[Reaper]

Well sure, but I'm talking about fighting another country.

 

 

I'm fairly sure we fought World War II without the president's consent.

 

I am not very well versed in American Politics, but in Political Science class this semester, we've spoken about the opposite -- going to war by circumventing (technically) the support of the Congress.

 

And, we also learned about Presidential Veto.

 

Won't that do it? I mean.. if Cogress would want to go to war, it wouldn't be able to do it without a Presidential support because the President can issue a Veto, right?

 

Again.. I'm not too well versed, but.. uhm.. it's interesting

 

~moo

 

 

The president can issue the veto, but Congress can overturn if more than 2/3 of it vote for the law again.

 

The way it works is this:

 

1.Congress proposes law

2.President approves/veto's it.

3. If accepted, it's reviewed by the courts. If not, then it goes back to Congress and is reviewed; if they vote in favor for it again, then the veto doesn't work.

 

 

At least, that's how it works in theory.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm fairly sure we fought World War II without the president's consent.

 

Care to explain that one?

[Reaper]

Care to explain that one?

 

Hitler declared war on the U.S. shortly after Pearl Harbor was bombed.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That doesn't mean we waged war without the President's consent. Roosevelt willingly fought back.

[Reaper]

That doesn't mean we waged war without the President's consent. Roosevelt willingly fought back.

 

Depends on how you define consent in this context. It's not so much that he willingly fought back but that he really didn't have much of a choice.

[CDarwin]

Depends on how you define consent in this context. It's not so much that he willingly fought back but that he really didn't have much of a choice.

 

Yes he did. He could have said, "No, Mr. Hitler. We won't fight you."

 

You're missing the constitutional point a bit. It's an interesting question.

 

I'd say no, the Congress can't make war without the President on board. Really, neither the legislative nor judicial branches can do anything without the executive willing to enforce it. Recall Andrew Jackson's response to the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Indian Removal Act: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

 

And he couldn't.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Depends on how you define consent in this context. It's not so much that he willingly fought back but that he really didn't have much of a choice.

 

He could have waited for Hitler to build an invasion fleet and try to sail across the Atlantic.

[Reaper]

Yes he did. He could have said, "No, Mr. Hitler. We won't fight you."

 

He could have said that, but that doesn't mean that he could avoid doing so.

 

If you were in that position, would you claim to have a choice?

 

He could have waited for Hitler to build an invasion fleet and try to sail across the Atlantic.

 

I guess he could have...

 

The U.S. could have also surrendered without a fight too...

 

 

 

I don't want to have a semantic battle here, but you cannot honestly tell me that this is considered consent with a straight face here.

 

For example, lets bring up a scenario. Your the president, and then all of the sudden, China declares war on you. And, they refuse to negotiate a peace or avoiding war. Are you really going to say "no we won't fight you because you don't have our consent", or not mobilize your forces. It would seem to me that you don't really have a choice.

[Pangloss]

That's really beside the point, though. What ParanoiA was asking is whether or not the country can fight a war without presidential support, leadership, etc. I think it's an interesting question.

 

And I think the answer is an emphatic "no". For example if Congress decided that it was time to invade Canada and the people were behind it (all those illegal Canadian terrorist aliens, you know!) and the White House was the only political entity in the entire country standing in the way, then we would not be able to invade Canada.

[D H]

It is the Commander in Chief who dictates the agenda for the military, not the Congress. The military could not carry out a Congressional declaration of war if the President breaks with that declaration ... that is, until Congress uses another of its rarely used Constitutional powers, impeachment.

[Sisyphus]

I think the answer is that we would be "at war" by law but not in practice, as the military would not mobilize.

 

World War 2 is not an example of the question. Yes, we were attacked before we declared war, but it was hardly fought without Presidential consent. It is not a secret that Roosevelt was looking for an excuse to enter the war, and he certainly was not acting against his will in waging that war. More importantly though, the OP does not seem to be primarily about defensive wars (if that's what you call American involvement in WW2). If, before we were attacked, Congress declared war on Japan, and Roosevelt was against it, what would have happened?

[mooeypoo]

BTW, I was thinking about something re the OP -

 

If a foreign enemy country is the one to declare war ('start' a war, whatever) on the USA -- does the President still need Congress approval to participate in the war that he was not the one to start?

 

This can be a big loophole.. a President can just state anything as "declaration of war" and use that to bypass the Congress approval.. but.. can he? I'm not sure, and I couldn't find anything online about this.

 

Thanks!

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

BTW, I was thinking about something re the OP -

 

If a foreign enemy country is the one to declare war ('start' a war, whatever) on the USA -- does the President still need Congress approval to participate in the war that he was not the one to start?

 

This can be a big loophole.. a President can just state anything as "declaration of war" and use that to bypass the Congress approval.. but.. can he? I'm not sure, and I couldn't find anything online about this.

 

Thanks!

 

~moo

 

Good question. I mean, we know he can mobilize troops to our defense, but since we're defending our home soil, I'm not sure he needs to worry about the length of time troops are engaged before a declaration of war empowers him. Interesting...

 

By the way, the reason behind my OP was to explore the possibility of the american people, pressuring congress, to come to the defense of another nation.

 

This came up in repeated conversations concerning Ron Paul and his non-interventionist platform. Many people see the sense in it, but take exception to Israel. They think we owe Israel defense - forever. My instinct was to rebutt with advocating citizens pressuring congress to declare war and fight it without the president.

 

So anyway, there goes that idea...

[iNow]

If a foreign enemy country is the one to declare war ('start' a war, whatever) on the USA -- does the President still need Congress approval to participate in the war that he was not the one to start?

This is precisely the logic behind the war powers resolution. He can do it on his own for 60 days. If the fighting continues beyond that 60 days, Congress must step in and decide yes/no.

 

The link below covers a lot about this good question:

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm