War Powers of President and (or Vs.) The Congress

Recent articles in this site, by Greg Reeson, Jeff Musall and others, in these pages and the appended comments by other writers, have demonstrated the divergence of opinions regarding the power of the Congress and the President with regard to the "waging" of war under Articles I and II pf the Constitution. What should be a simple enough discussion and answer has become contentious.

Article II of the Constitution is clear: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; . . ."

Article I of the Constitution grants the Legislature the power and sole authority to: declare war, raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy, to make Rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

As Fred Barbash points out in the Washington Post, the Senate will soon begin debating several non binding resolutions on the president's plan for a troop buildup in Iraq. As the battle is joined, both houses of Congress need to be reminded that the stakes go well beyond this particular buildup, this particular war and even this particular presidency.

At issue is the constitutional law governing the war power of the executive branch, specifically the vastness of the "battlefield" over which President Bush claims inherent authority as commander in chief. Also at issue are all the comparable claims yet to be made by occupants of the White House yet unborn, armed with the precedents being set right now.

In these issues, there is no option for inaction; in a contest between two branches of the federal government over separation of powers, silence is as powerful and effective as words.