Submitted 6 months ago by Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works to [deleted]
I know Congress needs to be involved to actually declare war, but there have been a number of times where something was kicked off by presidential authority alone.
If Biden wanted to, could he start a conflict against Russia without congressional approval. If not, what approval would he need? If so, what would be the theoretical limitations to his power and military authority?
The military industrial complex, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the rest of those.
Only Congress can officially declare war.
Right and when was the last time that process was actually followed?
Since 1973, sustained military operations have required Congress’ approval. A declaration of war is not needed, but the process of Congress voting to authorize military force has been followed.
Now, if you are in the mood to look for issues, look at the 2001 AUMF passed by Congress. It gave a blank check to conduct military operations against “those responsible for the 9/11 attacks”, which is authorization that given enough lawyers and determination can be very, very broad. That AUMF is still being cited for operations. The process has been followed to the tee, and Congressed did indeed sign off on it, but that is an example of a broad and open ended power being given away by one branch of government to another.
The President has to report all use of military force abroad to Congress within 48 hours, and those forces can’t be committed for more than 60 days without Congressional approval, either in the form of a Declaration of War, or an Authorization for the Use of Military Forces resolution.
Starting point for research: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
Ìt used to be when Dick Cheney said so, usually when he noticed some oil fields crying for freedom. Not sure who’s calling the shots nowadays.
If Biden wanted to, could he start a conflict against Russia without congressional approval. If not, what approval would he need? If so, what would be the theoretical limitations to his power and military authority?
He could do it for 60 days, at which point to legally continue, Congress would need to authorize an extension. A declaration of war is unnecessary, but an authorization of force (which is let’s call it a more polite euphemism for the same end effect) is at least.
Continued military operations beyond that time would trigger a big political mess. As a practical matter, military forces would still most likely follow presidential orders while the president was either forced to order an orderly withdrawal by Congress, or Congress gave in a retroactively authorized force.
If the political situation was intractable, you’d likely be looking at an impeachment hearing.
I would be really interested to see how it plays out if Congress decided to try and put the pin back in the president’s grenade. Would the US be forced to pay reparations? Would the military industrial complex flex its own political muscles more overtly than ever? How would that pan out in elections?
This comes to mind:
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Technically only Congress can authorize a war. However, the president can and often will undertake “peacekeeping efforts” or “counterinsurgency operations” or “targeted strikes” without congressional approval.
cobysev@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I served in the US military during the Iraq War. Everyone refers to it as a war, but within the military, it was officially called the Iraq Campaign, as it was a military campaign sanctioned by the president. We couldn’t officially call it a war because Congress didn’t approve a war in the Middle East.
Technically, the last war Congress approved was WWII. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, even our first foray into Iraq with the Gulf War… none of these are official wars. Just the president deciding to step in and get involved in foreign conflicts.
Aux@lemmy.world 6 months ago
“Special Military Operation”, lol.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 6 months ago
From 1973 onward, no. While the first Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq were not declared as wars, they were all authorized in votes by Congress.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The War Powers Act limits use of force by the President to 60 days of military operations. After that.
Congress still authorizes extended operations, even if they are not declarations of war.
For example, the Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001 authorized military force “against those responsible for the September 11 attacks”, which authorized both operations in Afghanistan and more global force. This has been controversial, as the interpretation of which groups were partially responsible has been broadly interpreted. However it was still a congressionally approved authorization. Congress could, if it so desired revoke that authorization.
Separately, the invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
So Biden, or any president could essentially start a conflict/war/whatever between the election and inauguration has been my take away.
I am fascinated by the minutae of hypothetical government actions, because it seems like at this point we are going down a road where they are more likely.
meco03211@lemmy.world 6 months ago
A big distinction is that it’s unlawful to follow unconstitutional orders. This is to hopefully prevent us ending up like the Nazis and a bunch of people trying to claim “I was just following orders”. So it oversimplifies the situation to say “disobeying the president” is unconstitutional. There’s nuance.
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 6 months ago
But that’s the crisis right? The president would almost never say “go violate the constitution.” They would say “go arrest and occupy Congress, THEY violated the constitution “
TornadoRex@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Military swears an oath to the constitution not to the president.
AA5B@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I don’t see how disobeying your boss is unconstitutional. It may be detrimental to your job but it’s not unconstitutional
As other posters have said, there’s lots of wiggle room in who can start military action, starting with the War Powers Act, so no violation of separation of powers either
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President authority to command the U.S. military. The military refusing a lawful order is therefore going against the chain of command created by the Constitution.
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 6 months ago
I mean in the literal sense the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. Disobeying their orders is defying their constitutional authority.
The issue is obviously more complicated than that just-so story. My point is not that if the president says to shoot the speaker of the house, soldiers must do it or they are behaving unconstitutionally. My point is that the president has the authority to direct the military to do things, and when the president uses that authority to undermine democracy in the US that act is a constitutional crisis because it pits two branches of government against each other in an irreconcilable way.