My Turn: Balance of war powers needed

The current controversy over the war in Iraq is one more reminder of the dynamic tension that has long existed between the President and Congress. That tension has increased in recent years, as presidential power has grown and congressional power has declined, especially in matters of war.

Incredibly, the last time we had a formal declaration of war was in 1941, as we entered World War II. That is also the last major war we won.

The Korean War ended in a stalemate. We lost the Vietnam War. The first Persian Gulf War was a limited incursion with a limited objective. Now, we are engaged in a bloody, global war on terrorism.

Since World War II, the United States has fought the aforementioned conflicts, plus several other skirmishes, without a declaration of war. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of considerable debate.

Proponents of presidential power in matters of war assert that only the president can be counted on to protect our vital interests in an era of constant, instantaneous threats to our national security. That argument has some merit. However, I see two major problems with it.

First, entrusting the president, any president, with the grave authority to take our nation to war violates the Constitution. The framers who worked that “Miracle in Philadelphia” in 1787 understood the gravity of war. They were learned and practical men, many of whom were veterans of the Revolutionary War. They knew the decision to go to war should never be entrusted to the president alone. So, they wrote into Article I that only Congress has the power to declare war. A wise move by wise men, in my opinion.

Second, the president already has the power, from Article II of the Constitution, to wage war as commander in chief. Again, the clear intent of the framers, embodied in the Constitution, was to divide the war powers between the president and Congress. It made perfect sense then.I believe it still makes sense today.

Whether presidents of both parties have usurped the powers of Congress to declare war, or, as I believe, Congress has abdicated those powers, the point is, I think we need to restore the balance of power between the president and Congress on matters of war.

I agree fully with Abraham Lincoln, whose eloquent words express the framers’ intent with clarity: “The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.”

Well said, Mr. Lincoln. If only presidents and members of Congress, present and future, would heed his words, and like President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress did in 1941, follow the framers’ intent. Then, we might have fewer wars, and more public support for them. Both, I believe, would be good things for our nation.

Thomas B. Vaughn is a professor at Motlow College and co-host of the radio show “Viewpoints,” broadcast on WCPI 91.3 FM.