the president gets to deploy the military where ever he wishes (outside the US, posse comitatus etc). That includes invading a sovereign nation or raining missiles down on one.
That is how it’s been interpreted, it’s not actually what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. They wanted congress to be a check on the presidents ‘commander in chief’ role by reserving the right to declare war for congress. If the president can still effectively declare war without a declaration of war, it’s the same as not having that check in the first place. It’s basically a loophole that presidents have been using to do illegal things
After it was either 60 or 90 days, I forget, congress gets to “review” the decision, the problem is they have no power other than financial if they wish to stop the war.
It’s 60 (with an additional 30 days to withdraw the forces) as outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This was an attempt by congress to close that loophole.
It’s true that they can cut off funding (as per Section 5c of the WPR), but congress pretty much already had that power as per the constitution and that’s not actually their only recourse. It’s still technically illegal for the president to do that (which means squat thanks to the SCOTUS) but he can be challenged through the courts for it. He could also be censured and as you mention impeached for it. None of those things are likely to happen now, but my point is Bernie is basically technically correct if not practically correct.
That is how it’s been interpreted, it’s not actually what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. They wanted congress to be a check on the presidents ‘commander in chief’ role by reserving the right to declare war for congress.
Agreed, the founding fathers definitely didn’t want a king who could wage war at his whim, but unfortunately the constitution as drafted didn’t envisage a standing army under the bidding of the President, it expected militias to be levied for defense as required.
It’s still technically illegal for the president to do that (which means squat thanks to the SCOTUS) but he can be challenged through the courts for it.
Kinda but not really. Something is only illegal if it is within the powers of the lawmaker to bind in that way. If the constitution doesn’t provide that power then it is ultra vires and as if the law didn’t exist. Unfortunately the constitutionality of the 1973 act is definitely questionable - I listed more in another response but
That is how it’s been interpreted, it’s not actually what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. They wanted congress to be a check on the presidents ‘commander in chief’ role by reserving the right to declare war for congress. If the president can still effectively declare war without a declaration of war, it’s the same as not having that check in the first place. It’s basically a loophole that presidents have been using to do illegal things
It’s 60 (with an additional 30 days to withdraw the forces) as outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This was an attempt by congress to close that loophole.
It’s true that they can cut off funding (as per Section 5c of the WPR), but congress pretty much already had that power as per the constitution and that’s not actually their only recourse. It’s still technically illegal for the president to do that (which means squat thanks to the SCOTUS) but he can be challenged through the courts for it. He could also be censured and as you mention impeached for it. None of those things are likely to happen now, but my point is Bernie is basically technically correct if not practically correct.
Agreed, the founding fathers definitely didn’t want a king who could wage war at his whim, but unfortunately the constitution as drafted didn’t envisage a standing army under the bidding of the President, it expected militias to be levied for defense as required.
Kinda but not really. Something is only illegal if it is within the powers of the lawmaker to bind in that way. If the constitution doesn’t provide that power then it is ultra vires and as if the law didn’t exist. Unfortunately the constitutionality of the 1973 act is definitely questionable - I listed more in another response but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Clinton