Presidential use of force abroad: Historical reliance on congressional authorization

The purpose of this dissertation is to explain why the current debate on presidential use of force has led congressionalists and presidentialists to reach vastly different conclusions regarding presidential powers and identical conclusions regarding the use of force tendencies of modern era presidents. Congressionalists argue that pre-Civil War and pre-modern era presidents deferred to Congress on use of force matters, while modern presidents have increasingly usurped congressional war powers. Presidentialists agree that modern era presidents have increasingly used force absent congressional authorization, but claim that the president possesses the authority to use such force under his commander in chief powers as established through practice---particularly since 1950.; Through a case analysis of U.S. presidential uses of force from 1798 to the present, I argue that modern era presidents generally have relied on congressional authorization to use force, but that modern presidents have misrepresented such reliance through their claims of authority to use force abroad in the absence of congressional authorization. I argue that such claims, coupled with congressionally veiled authorizations to use force, have created the impression that presidents have used force without congressional authorization in instances in which the founders intended for the president to obtain congressional authorization. While congressionalists have correctly identified the tendency of modern presidents to increasingly claim use of force authority, they have erroneously concluded that such a tendency demonstrates increased presidential usurpation of congressional war powers. Presidentialists have also identified this tendency of modern presidents, but have erroneously concluded---as a matter of law and of history---that such claims confer upon the modern president broader use of force powers than practiced by presidents of the pre-Civil War and pre-modern eras.; The consequence of the current debate between presidentialists and congressionalists is that Congress is virtually absolved of any responsibility for use of force policy. This dissertation attempts to focus use of force analysis on the actions of both Congress and the president, by explaining how and when Congress has authorized use of force, why Congress relies on veiled authorizations, and why the modern era presidents make claims of broad use of force powers.