On The Fence

(3 of 4)
Whatever the political consequences, the Constitution does grant Congress -- and Congress alone -- the power to declare war. The reason was clearly explained by James Madison, a key framer of that document who went on to become President. "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates," wrote Madison in 1798, "that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."

Although Bush claims to be a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Constitution -- meaning that he respects the original intentions of those who wrote the document -- he prefers to emphasize the passage that designates the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Many Presidents have relied on that provision to initiate quick military action without congressional approval. Bush's staff members like to point out that in the country's 200-year history, Presidents have sent American soldiers abroad 211 times, though Congress has declared war on only six occasions.* But those expeditions rarely involved massive troop deployments or a prolonged buildup to war. The gulf, in contrast, is a textbook case of when Congress should be a part of the decision: speed is not essential, and the stakes are high -- very high.

Nor is the case for involving Congress merely academic. Vietnam is now regarded as a warning that disaster awaits any President who leads the country into a lengthy war without the support of Congress. Even hawks on Capitol Hill say that in the event of an extended and bloody struggle in the gulf, it will be crucial for the President to have Congress on record as with him from the outset. "If you want Congress in on the landing," says House Democrat Stephen Solarz of New York, who supports the use of force against Saddam, "you had better have Congress in on the takeoff."

With debate under way at last in both houses, the question becomes just what kind of action Congress should take. One unlikely prospect is that it could offer the President a blank check to pursue his current policies. To that end, the White House began preparing a draft resolution for Congress that would urge "continued action" by the President to fulfill U.N. mandates calling for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

Few members of Congress expect Bush to get that kind of green light. But neither does there appear to be any enthusiasm for invoking the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which instructs a President to withdraw troops 60 days after they are dispatched unless Congress approves the deployment or grants an extension. No President has ever recognized the constitutionality of that Vietnam-era resolution, and Congress has given up hope that it could use such a slender thread to reel in the massive military machine in the gulf.

Congress could pass resolutions supporting further diplomacy or urging more patience in pursuing the embargo. In either case, lawmakers would face political humiliation -- and a full-fledged constitutional crisis -- should the President decide to ignore them. But Bush may find his maneuvering room constrained by political expediency as well as constitutional forms: no President wants to risk taking on the whole responsibility for a U.S. war by himself.