There are two flavors of this. One of them doesn't suck: Since WW II there has been a feeling that a straight-out declaration of war meant total war, war of national annihilation. So Congress passes "authorizations for the use of force". In that regard, Congress is doing its job, because they actually do debate the matter, despite the euphemism. In that regard, Congress did its job in regard to the Iraq War (whether or not you agree with its decision).
The less pleasant side are all the quasi-wars and intermittent military actions the President takes without official approval by Congress. (E.g., someone tallied that the Clinton administration did a military action every nine weeks on the average.) These are done under the excuse of the War Powers Act, which is probably unconstitutional on its face. But as the editorialists have noted, Congress doesn't want to take responsibility for either approving or denying requests to use force, and the President doesn't want to have to get Congress' permission, so both sides are happy with the situation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-11-03 06:15 pm (UTC)The less pleasant side are all the quasi-wars and intermittent military actions the President takes without official approval by Congress. (E.g., someone tallied that the Clinton administration did a military action every nine weeks on the average.) These are done under the excuse of the War Powers Act, which is probably unconstitutional on its face. But as the editorialists have noted, Congress doesn't want to take responsibility for either approving or denying requests to use force, and the President doesn't want to have to get Congress' permission, so both sides are happy with the situation.