Talk:War Powers Clause

Untitled
This article states that only since the Korean War did Presidents ignore the idea of needing a direct declaration of war. This is simply not true. Starting certainly by Adams (French-Naval War) and Jefferson (Barbary Pirates) the war powers was being stretched. There are close to 50 times when American forces were introduced before the 1973 war powers resolution without a formal declaration of war. During the Clinton Administration, the President's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the Executive Branch has cited as much as 200 instances. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.182.44.121 (talk • contribs) 03:23, March 29, 2005.

There are several reasons that may explain why the Korean War is being cited. It is the first major conflict since the last declared war. It marks the first time that the UN Charter was invoked as a treaty giving the president authorization to commit US armed forces to a foreign conflict. This led to great debate in Congress about the sovereignty of the United States as well as the question of prim'''acy between the UN Charter and the US Constitution. Finally, it marked one of the few instances where the Supreme Court sided against a president claiming Executive discretion as Commander-in-Chief. In the simplified version, President Truman attempted to seize privately owned steel mills on the verge of a strike for the purpose of preventing a major disruption in the provision of supplies to troops on the battlefield. The Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown v. Sawyer that the seizure was illegal since there were existing statutes defining the options available to a president in the event of an imminent strike. Thus although it is not true that presidents have 'ignored' seeking declarations of war only since the Korean War, it is still useful to draw attention''' to that particular war. As such, the citation of Korea and the declaration of war as it stands should be changed. It could perhaps be said that the Korean War presents the first major declaration of war controversy of the 'modern era." That would be more true.  —This unsigned comment was added by GPacificar (talk • contribs).

(Disclaimer: I am new here and do not yet understand the tools. If anyone wants to edit the format of this post, feel free to do so.) To the first user who posted on this page, I would advise you to retain a healthy degree of skepticism when evaluating the claims put forth by the President's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which has a direct stake in this matter. Since they have an obvious incentive to distort the truth here, they certainly cannot be counted on to convey a dispassionate account. The several inaccuracies you have mentioned, believing them to be facts, are the result of common, albeit quite understandable, historical misunderstandings on your part. If you are further interested in the matter, I would highly recommend that you visit http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=495 and listen to (or watch, as you may prefer) the two lectures by Professor Woods entitled "The American Presidency: Critical Episodes in Its Growth," Parts I and II. Woods' excellent scholarship, as always, should clear up the matter for you (as it did for me). You may not particularly enjoy his biases, but the facts he provides are readily verifiable, and especially damning for those who wish to mislead the public in order to expand their own power. -- SamAdams 21:31, January 31, 2006

I understand the sense that information offered by the President's Office of Legal Counsel be considered suspect, especially in these strange days. A healthy skepticism is certainly good for any academic or inquisitive party. I would suggest that although there may be an incentive to distort information, there is also what I would guess to be a stronger rational incentive to protect the actions of the executive by means of legal safeguards found in either statutes, precedents, or whatever is determined to be necessary. This is not to suggest the impossibility of distortions generated within the OLC. It is that distortions are, all things being equal, not as likely to be generated by that office. I am not a lawyer and know little of legal methods. Yet I will hazard a guess and assert that the effectiveness of legal protections is positively related to the sophistication and logical soundness of the fundamental arguement, and also to the accuracy of the precedents and statutes that provide the fundamental assumptions upon which the argument is made. —This unsigned comment was added by GPacificar (talk • contribs) 23:48, March 25, 2006.

Act of 1933?

I was engaged in a debate with a person who claimed that the President is the one with the authority to declare war based on an Emergency Powers Act of 1933 that he claimed is still in effect to this day. He offered this website as a reference: http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm

He also stated that the 1973 act was shot down in court. If this is true then why is this info not listed in the Wiki article? Is it because the article is incomplete or because his claim is crap? 24.178.211.155 07:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree with the statement:

"More importantly, this establishes that international law governs the conduct of the war."

There was no such concept or use of this term in the days the framers were alive.

I firmly belive there is no such thing as International Law because there is no soverign body to enact and administer such law.

The statment should be edited to read:

More importantly, this establishes that international accepted standards of morality governs the conduct of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.246.224 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * international law is made up of treaties. Therefore if the US signs a treaty that says they wont use chemical weapons, that is international law, there is also war crime tribunals that do pass judgment and carry out sentences. That more applies to how war is conducted, rather that the declaration of it. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over what the War Powers Clause actually is
During Lincoln's time, when this issue was of concern due to its application to the writ of habeas corpus, the War Powers Clause was considered to be Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.83.235 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall Quality
The entire entry is really horrid. How do you put one of those tags on the top asking somebody to clean it up or start it over from scratch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.12.113 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

other congressional approval
Although there has been only a few declarations of war, congress has provided approval for military action. That is declared war in all but name. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)