Launch Codes Not Biggest Concern

Through the circumvention of our Constitution, our president has the unprecedented power to wreak massive death and destruction upon a whim. 

 

Under the constitution is the president granted authority to “DECLARE WAR” – send America into war?  Answer: No 

Under the constitution is the president granted authority to wage – guide and direct - war?  Answer: Yes.

The question for modern America has become; has the constitution been circumvented to allow the president authority under an guise of waging war to grant him the authority to declare war?  These waters have been mightily muddied over the last 225 years. 

Under Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war.  Without directly stating it, the framers made it clear they did NOT want to entrust the spilling of blood and the expenditure of capital wealth along with the nation’s resources and the obvious initiating of the most devastating action known to mankind, entrusted to just one person. 

Our founding fathers additionally understood that circumstances could arise where immediate action would need to be taken.  As such, the president was empowered to repel sudden attacks to our country’s boarders or imminent actions that threatened our borders without waiting for the approval of congress.  Alexander Hamilton argued that there would be no need for a declaration of war by congress in that war was already being waged. 

Congress has declared war on eleven occasions: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I (2 separate declarations) and World War Two (6 sperate Declarations).  So, the question becomes, with no congressional declarations of war and with no immediate impeding disasters, how was authority granted to wage Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait (1991 Gulf War), Iraq and Afghanistan? 

 Korea was never classified as an American war.  It was classified as a “Police Action.”  We were part of a United Nations (U.N.) initiative to repel an attack on a sovereign nation.  America, at the strong urging of the U.N., agreed to lead and guide that U.N. initiative.  President Truman stated that no Congressional approval was needed as the United States was acting under the authority of the United Nations charter.  

Vietnam was fought under joint Congressional approval through the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” or the “Southeast Asia Resolution.”  This joint Congressional resolution and statutory authorization allowed President Johnson to employ armed forces in Southeast Asia without a “Declaration of War.” 

During the Vietnam War, President Nixon conducted secret bombings of Cambodia without notifying Congress.  This led to the adoption of the “War Powers Resolution” or the “War Powers Act” on November 7, 1973.  It stated objective was to curb the president’s power to commit armed forces without the consent of congress.  Since its passage, both Congress and presidents have found ways to side-step or skirt the legislation in one form or another.  

The 1991 Gulf War was fought under the joint Congressional resolution and statutory “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991.” 

After we were attacked on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation.  This provided far broader discretionary powers to our commander-in-chief.  This was closely followed on October 16, 1992 with yet another joint Congressional resolution and statutory authorization, the “Iraq War Resolution,” allowing and giving consent to engage in the Iraqi War. 

 The fifteen-year Afghanistan War has been waged under the 2001 “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation.  The action stemmed from the then ruling government of the Taliban refusing to extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S.  The Taliban was providing refuge and save haven to Al-Qaeda. The stated objective was to dismantle al-Qaeda, which had executed the September 11 attacks, and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban government from power. President Obama has continued this war under the same Congressional statutory authorization even though we have successfully crushed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.  They have now taken refuge in Pakistan.

In December 2015 the “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation was expanded to include ISIS. 

It should be noted that while the stated and often misinterpreted objective of the “War Powers Resolution” or the “War Powers Act” on November 7, 1973 was to limit presidential authority it also gave the president much broader powers.  It clearly states that the president can act, without congressional approval, should the United States, its territories and possessions or its armed forces be attacked. 

Also, there are no limits placed on a president requiring him to gain the consent of congress for what is termed small scale military actions.  This allowed Ronald Reagan to attack Muammar al-Qaddafi in 1986, Bill Clinton to employ missile strikes in Afghanistan and other areas of the world and, of course, for president Obama to launch Tomahawk missiles willy-nilly.  Congressional action is also not necessary should the president CLAIM we are under the THREAT of imminent attack ANYWHERE and it is therefore necessary to use military force to protect Americans. 

This greatly expands the original edict set forth by our framers that only included the repelling of sudden attacks to our country or to prevent imminent actions that threatened our borders. 

The American “forever war crowd” argues that through all these endless “Congressional statutory authorizations” - with presumably more to come – that congress is giving its consent and thus providing the necessary “Declaration of War” required in the constitution.  It is also argued that in today’s world waiting for congressional approval from those who can’t reach a consensus on how to bake a cake, could result in catastrophic consequences. 

 What we as American are challenged with is, first and foremost, to recognize that when we elect a Commander-in-Chief, we are indeed entrusting the spilling of blood and the expenditure of capital wealth along with the nation’s resources and the obvious initiating of the most devastating action known to mankind to one person which clearly circumvents both the spirit and intent of the constitution.  

Repeals of all these “Congressional statutory authorizations” and a simple return to the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is hardly forthcoming.  Which, in and of itself, is terrifying enough without ever introducing launch codes into the discussion.