A Review Over American Presidential And Congressional War Power Problem

Problem over the War Power has been one of the vexed key Problems between American President and Congress for quite a long time. Conflicts between American President and Congress over the War Power is born of Constitutional ambiguity and uncertainty, which has been holding momentous Constitutional tension and intense struggle, and which has been developing with new contents along with the changing of the Constitution and historical context. Conflicts between American President and Congress over the War Power have been in existence during the whole course of American history.As far as the division of the War Power in the Constitution is concerned, the Founders attempted to established an effective check and balance between the President and Congress so as to prevent the U.S. from entering wars because of the unilateral authority, or that the abuse of War Power causes military autarchy and tyranny, which finally endangers freedom and the institutions of democracy themselves. Therefore the Founders' intent concerning the construction of War Power is very definite. However, because the articles on the division of War Power in the Constitution are very concise and cause ambiguity, the Founders' intent is not very definite in many respects.In that case, both of the President and Congress had the competing opportunities of War Power.Over the two centuries since 1789, Presidents have been increasingly grabbing War Power by all means. Although the Constitution does not expressly direct the President to protect American life and property in foreign countries, Presidents have sent U.S. forces abroad for that purpose or others on many occasions in the absence of a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization of Congress. Presidents make time boundaries of war period more flexible and vaguer to expand the War Power. Presidents take military actions before Congressional actions; after hostilities have ceased Presidents retain many wartime powers be means of the demobilization powers.According to the Constitution, the Presidents are only able to take defensive military actions instead of offensive ones, unless the Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization. After World War II because American national interests extended all over the world and the U.S. undertook extensive military and international commitments, the President expanded the War Power by means of bilateral and multilateral defense treaties, executive policy statements and communiques or by expanding the geographic sweep of present-day defensive wars. No longer did the President confine the notion of defensive war to military actions on American continental boundaries. Accordingly, the idea of defensive war took quantum jump.A truism of modern Presidency is that that War Power slipped virtually wholly from Congressional grasp and was almost completely controlled by the President. The root cause, in the first place, lies in that the combination of the Presidency and war characteristics impaired the Congressional restraining mechanism to the President. The characteristics of the Presidency are more suitable for war decision. The war precedents the President established not only construed ambiguity on the War Power but also had important referential effect on war decision in the future. Military actions that the President took by means of the power of enforcing the law at will filled in the blanks of the War Power. The President had already become a key lawmaker and an executive in the war field.Secondly, Congressional submissions and supports accelerated the steady expansion of the War Power of the President. As a result of its own weaknesses, Congress had to yield to the President's excluding Congress from war decision. Congressmen usually replaced the detailed understandings towards military actions with a kind of idealism. When the Presidential military actions were in accordance with their idealism, Congressmen supported them. Even though they did not approve of the Presidential actions, Congressmen inevitably asked Congress for all-out support owing to American idealism temperament, which made Congress not fully apply its own powers to limit the Presidential War Power. The success and failure of the military actions was usually viewed as the key of employment of state power in the nation's history. As long as the military actions succeeded, Congress would supported them.When the scale of American involvement in the Vietnam War was greater deeper, gradually the President perceived obvious challenge to his status on war decision. Congress was determined to renew and reassert its War Power. On the whole, Congress seldom limited effectively the Presidential War Power. Before 1973, Congress had yield to the expansions of the Presidential War Power. Even though Congress took some steps, they would be the local ones, lacking a comprehensive design and have only limited effects. In 1973, Congress adopted the War Power Resolution that attempted to limit the Presidential War Power more completely and concretely. Although gaining with limited effects, it indicated that Congress was determined to limit the Presidential War Power after drawing the bitter lesions, also strengthened Congressional potential ability to limit the Presidential war-making power. Its symbolic systemic meaning cannot be ignored. It was the most important effort for Congress to reassert the War Power.