The Executive's Endless War Power
Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi recently criticized Donald Trump for disrespecting the War Powers Act, suggesting a future administration might unilaterally embroil the nation in conflict. This observation, while ostensibly about one president, echoes perennial concerns about executive power. The War Powers Act of 1973, passed over President Nixon's veto, was meant to restore Congress's
constitutional authority to declare war after decades of unchecked presidential military action, notably during the Vietnam War. However, the uncomfortable truth is that nearly every administration since 1973, Democrat and Republican alike, has bypassed or reinterpreted this act. For example, President Clinton's 1999 bombing campaign in Kosovo had no congressional authorization, nor did President
Obama's 2011 intervention in Libya. Both actions contradicted the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, yet drew considerably less congressional outrage from the same factions now expressing concern. The criticism of Trump, therefore, highlights a specific, often partisan, application of constitutional principles. When former Vice President Cheney asserted in 2007 that presidents don't need
Congress's permission for military action, it was dismissed by many as extremist. Yet, the pattern of presidents committing forces without explicit congressional declarations, particularly in the post-9/11 era under AUMF permissions, has become disturbingly normalized. More than 40 military interventions have occurred since 1973 without a formal declaration of war. The underlying issue isn’t a