The President's Power to Initiate War: A Historical Perspective

[MarneMath]

I don't really disagree with your sentiment but from my limited memory of U.S. History and some books, I don't believe saying that in our history the question of what extent the president has to start/declare/make war never really existed is correct. Hamilton explicitly argued in the Federalist papers that the present shall be the commander in chief and congress shall declare war. Madison also argued a similar point with the added clarification that the president shall have the ability to repel hostile action without the congress approval, but congress would be the approving authority for the declaration of war. James Wilson argued at the Pennsylvania convention that no single man shall have the ability to declare war.

Now what happened in the course of history is obviously another thing, but the question of presidential powers and reach clearly existed.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say the President can/has declare(d) war, I said he can/has fought(fight) wars - under most definitions of "war" - without them being declared.

 

[MarneMath]

Well, maybe I'm misreading mheslep intent. It seems that he as a particular problem with a president having the ability to start a war and deploy a troops to foreign country without the consent of congress. Sure technically that may not be a declared war, but I'm sure in most people's eyes and the troops fighting in such conflicts, it's war enough, and it's that easy ability to do that makes many people nervous.

Speaking for myself, regardless of what you choose to call it, it will never seem okay for the president to deploy troops to a foreign country with hostile intent without the consent of congress. Once such consent is given, I fully agree that congress shall have no role in the fight of the war, but prior to that consent the president shall not fight such war. The Federalist papers seemed pretty clear on that was the intent of this certain check and balance.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, maybe I'm misreading mheslep intent. It seems that he as a particular problem with a president having the ability to start a war and deploy a troops to foreign country without the consent of congress.

Yes, and he thinks that's a new "problem", caused in part by a changing definition of war. So I pointed out that the President has always been able to do that, even before the new definition, and has done it over a hundred times in the past 200+ years.