Throughout history, presidents and congresses have jockeyed for control over war powers. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war, while Article II names the President as “Commander in Chief” of the army, navy and militia. The jockeying reached a watershed moment of congressional assertiveness with the passage of the 1973 War Powers Act. Since then, however, presidential war-making power has been in a state of near-constant expansion—an expansion only accelerated by overseas counterterrorism actions and recent presidential military actions in Libya and Syria.
Latest in War Powers
By adopting two resolutions that oppose the Trump administration’s policies towards Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the Senate may have tipped the scales towards a change in policy.
A 2001 interview with the former and soon-to-be attorney general sheds light on his views regarding the Constitution’s allocation of war powers.
Wednesday’s vote was a major victory for opponents of the Yemen war. The reason has less to do with the legislation and more to do with the vote itself.
Nov. 4 is the anniversary of, by some measures, the U.S. military’s worst battlefield defeat ever—an incident that says a great deal about executive and legislative use of military power in the early republic.
How a dispute between Harry Truman and congressional skeptics established presidential authorities that are unquestioned today.
A new authorization for use of military force against terrorists is constitutionally desirable. But Congress has even more powerful tools to shape the trajectory of this fight for the better.
This Office of Legal Counsel test for unilateral uses of force provides no meaningful constraint on presidential power.
The opinion on the April 2018 airstrikes against Syrian chemical-weapons facilities follows straightforwardly from Obama-era legal opinions, including one we did not know about until today.
On Thursday, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued the following memorandum opinion on the April 2018 U.S. airstrikes against three Syrian chemical-weapons facilities.
We conducted a public opinion survey that found that Americans are sensitive to considerations of necessity, proportionality, and congressional authorization when evaluating whether the use of force is a justified response to a military threat from a foreign country. But what if the threat in question isn’t a conventional military one?