I wrote a longer discussion about Constitutional authority and what each branch of government is allowed to do. There has been disagreement for years about the President’s power as Commander in Chief. Every President has taken it to mean that they have the authority to move and engage the armed forces as necessary. Congress has the responsibility to make laws governing how the military runs and to provide money to support it. In 1973 Congress passed, over Richard Nixon’s veto, The War Powers Act which restricted the President’s authority to command the military. The Congress was upset with Vietnam as they had been with Korea (both conflicts that Democrats got us into). No war was ever declared, another Congressional responsibility. The last war the US declared was WWII.
The War Powers Act restricted the President’s authority and said that Congress had to approve how the troops were deployed. This was done as an effort to define what the founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution (as was Roe v Wade). Most Presidents view the WPA as unconstitutional and generally ignore it. Presidents have engaged our armed forces in combat without the permission of the Congress. Whether it was Clinton’s Balkans or Reagan’s Grenada, the Presidents did what they thought was right with the military.
Now the Congress, deluded with the idea that the last election was about the war, have decided to take it one step further. A few members have introduced legislation requiring the President to get Congressional approval before increasing troop numbers or attacking other countries. This will not stand up to scrutiny and Bush would veto it anyway.
Harry Reid had this to say (with regard to Iran):
“The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization,” Yahoo News
According to the WPA (which remember, Presidents have viewed as unconstitutional) the President may use the troops in combat for up to 60 days without Congressional authority. That can be extended to 90 days. So, if we take the WPA as legal, Harry Reid is technically wrong. If the President wanted to he could send troops into Iran he could do so and Congress would have to worry about what to do at the end of 60 days. I am also unsure if we attacked them and then stopped and moved out on day 59 could we attack again on day 61? Would that be considered to different occurrences under the WPA? Regardless, Reid is wrong and he is doing nothing more than misinforming the public.
The Administration has indicated they do not plan to attack Iran but have refused to rule that out. The concern for Congress is that the President has moved a couple of aircraft carriers and other warships into the region. The new SECDEF states this is to show Iran that we are not weakened despite our deployment in Iraq. We are, so to speak, flexing our muscles. This is a good idea and it might help to stir up more unrest among the Iranian population who, by and large, do not like the direction the country is taking. In any event, should we find it necessary to attack Iran we may do so without the approval of Congress.
I imagine if this comes to pass it might lead to a Supreme Court challenge to the War Powers Act. Perhaps the time has come to retire that once and for all.