"Even though I am not a big fan of George W. Bush and did not vote for a Bush elector in either of the past two elections, I am sick and tired of democrats and their stooges in the media claiming President Bush was the one who made the determination that Saddam Hussien had weapons of mass destruction and he alone is responsible for the war in Iraq. Democrats would have us believe that the president, as commander in chief, has the constitutional authority to move the military forces of the United States against any country he chooses and President Bush targeted Iraq, under the guise of weapons of mass destruction, to steal their oil for his buddies. Many Americans, who were unfortunately allowed to cast a vote in the 2004 presidential election, have this same belief concerning the constitutional powers of the president.
Following the close of the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787, the commander in chief powers of the president, like many other provisions of the proposed constitution, were discussed at length in various publications. In Federalist Essay No. 69, Alexander Hamilton compared the military powers of the president to that of the King of Great Britain:
The President is to be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,¾ all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.
As stated by Hamilton, the power of the president, concerning the regular forces of the United States, was inferior to that of the king of Great Britain because he lacked the constitutional power to declare war. The president, in this regard, acts only in the capacity of a supreme admiral or general after a declaration of war by Congress.
Since a president acts merely as the highest-ranking admiral or general, he lacks the constitutional authority to determine the nation that war can be waged against. Only Congress can make that determination. This is one of the purposes of a formal declaration of war. It specifically designates the nation or nations that can be attacked. Once this is done, the president then receives the power to act offensively and prosecute the war to its conclusion.
The action taken by President Roosevelt and Congress the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 demonstrates how this constitutional process is suppose to take place. On December 8, Roosevelt appeared before a Joint Session of Congress and requested that body formally declare war on Japan. The Congressional Declaration of War adopted pursuant to his request stated in part:
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Once war was formally declared, President Roosevelt, as stated in the Declaration, received the authority, from Congress, to take control of the military forces of the United States and prosecute the war to its conclusion. Without authorization from Congress, he was constitutionally powerless to act in an offensive capacity.
When Germany declared war on the United States three days later, Roosevelt again appeared before a Joint Session of Congress. Congress responded by formally declaring war on Germany. This Declaration gave Roosevelt separate authorization and control over the military forces of the United States. Each Declaration was distinct from the other.
If the president, as commander in chief, had the constitutional authority to initiate war, as many believe, then there would have been no need for President Roosevelt to have appeared before a Joint Session of Congress on two separate occasions in 1941. He could have simply by-passed Congress by invoking his authority as commander in chief. In addition, if a president has unlimited control over the military forces of the United States, then why did it take two separate declarations of war in 1941 to authorize and direct President Roosevelt to employ the military forces of the United States against Japan and Germany? If the office of the president had independent power over the military, through the commander in chief provision, then President Roosevelt could have authorized and directed himself to employ United States forces against these nations.
This raises a question concerning the present conflict in Iraq. Did President Bush unconstitutionally usurp power and seize control of the military forces of the United States in violation of the commander in chief provisions of the Constitution, as many claim, or did Congress specifically authorize the attack on Iraq?
In October of 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114. This resolution, which was not a formal declaration of war, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. A review of the resolution shows it was Congress that determined Iraq had "nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them." It was Congress that determined Iraq posed "a continuing threat to the national security of the United States…by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability". It was Congress that determined Iraq was "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." It was Congress that determined "members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States…are…in Iraq." It was Congress that determined Iraq was "in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions." And it was Congress that determined that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions would be enforced--"through the use of force if necessary."
As a result of these determinations, Congress inserted a provision that authorized the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Critics of President Bush claim that since weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq, the President mislead the American people concerning the reasons for the war. As shown above, it was Congress that made the determination that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Since a president is merely the arm of Congress when it comes to the use of military forces in an offensive capacity, any blame for the war, good, bad or otherwise must be laid squarely on the shoulders of Congress because a president is powerless to act without authorization and direction from Congress.
Even if weapons of mass destruction were removed from the debate, the provision authorizing military action to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions would have been sufficient for the President to attack Iraq under the terms set-forth by Congress. However, the author finds this provision more outrageous than the war itself because there is no constitutional authority for Congress to authorize the United States military to act as a global police force for the United Nations.
One of the biggest problems with our political system is presidents get too much blame and too much praise while Congress gets off scot free when something goes wrong. Since it was Congress that determined Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that body, including Senator John Kerry, authorized the president to attack Iraq to protect the security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions, the American people should blame Congress for the war in Iraq."
