candukid So, what happens when he puts boots on the ground in this excursion and lives start being lost? Can he legally do this? Of course not without Congress and your constitution.
What then? Is it now a war (which it really already is)? An illegal one?
Good question..... It gets tricky....
It's called the Declare War Clause in the Constitution which says, "The Congress shall have the power to declare war." It did allow Presidents to repel sudden attacks though.
And in 1973 after the Vietnam War, Congress overrode Nixon's veto and passed the War Powers Act. It was supposed to limit the Presidents power in an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.
It states that troops cannot remain in combat for more than 60 days without Congress authorization etc.. After that time period Congress must declare War.
It's been argued by both sides that's it's unconstitutional. And Congress hasn't declared war since World War II. The War Powers Act was meant to reassert Congress's authority to declare war.
After the attacks on 9-11 Congress passed the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force). It gave Bush 43 authority to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It was not a formal declaration of war though. But legally it authorized the war. And the AUMF has been used multiple times across many countries since then.
Critics say it stretched the War Powers Act beyond it's intent though. The Korean War was called a 'Police Action' by Truman. So it seems semantics matter when it comes to declaring war. lol
Bottom line. The War Powers Act was meant to stop another Vietnam, but presidents have found a way of working around it. It's been a more political check that legal barrier.
Presidents almost always notify Congress to 'technically comply'. So actually Congress does have the power to stop presidents from going to war. So why do they rarely use it?
Political risks. No one wants to own the war. If Congress approves it and things go badly they get blamed. So many members avoid taking a clear vote at all.
And in many cases military actions happen fast so the war is already underway. So the War Powers Act feels reactive instead of preventive.
So if you've read this far the answer is again tricky. But to sum it up. Again, after 9-11 Congress passed the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force). And it was used by later presidents up till now including Trump.
The thinking was that it allowed Presidents to fight terrorism in many countries without new votes. So the War Powers Act has become a political football.
Despite legal gray areas like does 'hostilities' count. What about drone strikes? How about military advisors or even limited troops etc..
Congress does have the tools to stop a war. Cut off funding. Pass a resolution to withdraw troops. Refuse authorization.
So the War Powers Act created a shared responsibility system. But in practice Presidents tend to lead and Congress tends to react or avoid reacting.
So instead of a strict law it works more like a negotiation shaped by politics, timing and public opinion. So today the President has more real world power over war than Congress.
Even though in the Constitution it was designed the opposite way. So again, it's tricky....................