The New York Times
Published: March 29, 1984
WASHINGTON, March 28
The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without
Congressional approval.
Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by
Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.
The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.
The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/world/how-war-powers-act-works.html
Author: Alton Frye, Presidential Senior Fellow Emeritus
April 17, 2002
Congress’s stand on how our nation uses the mighty arsenal at its disposal also bears crucially on America’s standing in the world.
Even among our closest allies, American power elicits mixed emotions: awe and fear, respect and anxiety. That should surprise no one. Military and economic capabilities of the magnitude America possesses cannot fail to cause alarm in other countries, however benign our intentions. That alarm is heightened to the degree that
American force appears to be too easily deployed. In the eyes of others, no less than of our own citizens, American military action may be seen as most legitimate when it is demonstrably subject to democratic governance. This insight is akin to Justice Jackson’s memorable formulation that the President’s power is at its maximum only when he acts “pursuant to an explicit or implied authorization of
Congress.”
There is thus an enduring necessity to balance executive potency in military endeavors with the legislative review that provides democratic legitimacy. The challenge is not to enchain the presidency but to harness both branches to common purpose. On that insight the War Powers Resolution was founded, and in that insight may be found the germ of other innovations to guarantee that
Congress will play its proper constitutional role in the war on terrorism. http://www.cfr.org/publication/4514/applying_the_war_powers_resolution_to
_the_war_on_terrorism.html
Cheney, Vice Presidential Power and the War on Terror
Joel K. Goldstein
Saint Louis University - School of Law
2009
APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper
Abstract:
It is generally conceded that Vice President Cheney has been our most influential vice president. During his two terms, the office assumed a significance which his predecessors, even those who themselves were quite significant, would not have thought possible. Whereas historically the vice presidency had been dismissed as too feeble, the Cheney vice presidency was attacked as too robust.
The unprecedented power of Cheney as vice president had many sources. One of them was the war on terror. It, of course, assumed an unexpected prominence after 9/11, and the war on terror contributed to Cheney’s ascendance and provided the political theatre in which his unique vice presidential role was performed. The war on terror allowed for an expansion of executive power generally in a manner which extended presidential power beyond its normal sphere even while the vice presidency itself occupied a larger space in the executive branch.
The Cheney vice presidency avoided many of the constraints which presidential leadership normally imposes as well as those forms of accountability which are rooted in the political system.
Moreover, normal patterns of vice-presidential self-restraint often seemed absent, perhaps related to the other two developments.
The patterns of the Cheney tenure are unlikely to become permanent, rooted as they were in a distinctive set of circumstances. It is hard to imagine another president allowing the vice president such latitude, another vice president flexing such muscle, or circumstances occurring which were so conducive to so expansive a vice-presidential role. Nonetheless, the Cheney tenure provides yet another model of vice-presidential conduct and furnishes a case study against which to test certain ideas about the vice presidency in particular and concepts about the institutional design of American government more generally. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450601 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandt reaty.htm
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswar s.htm
http://www.animatedatlas.com/timeline.html
President Franklin D.
Roosevelt delivers the
'Day of Infamy' speech to a joint session of
Congress on
December 8, 1941, the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. [FDR Library,
National Archives]
War Powers of President
The Constitution divides war powers between the
Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.
The Constitution's division of powers leaves the
President with some exclusive powers as
Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers
(such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.

Dates
July 4, 1675 -
August 12, 1676
1689-1697
1702-1713
1744-1748
1756-1763
1759-1761
1775-1783
1798-1800
1801-1805; 1815
1812-1815
1813-1814
1836
1846-1848
1861-1865
1898
War in Which
American
Colonists or
United States
Citizens Officially
Participated
Major
Combatants
King Philip's War
King William's War
Queen Anne's War
War of Spanish
Succession)
King George's War
(War of Austrian
Succession)
French and Indian
War (Seven Years
War)
Cherokee War
American
Revolution
Franco-American
Naval War
Barbary Wars
War of 1812
Creek War
New England
Colonies vs.
Wampanoag,
Narragansett, and
Nipmuck Indians
The English
Colonies vs. France
The English
Colonies vs. France
The French
Colonies vs. Great
Britain
The French
Colonies vs. Great
Britain
English Colonists vs. Cherokee
Indians
English Colonists vs. Great Britain
United States vs.
France
United States vs.
Morocco, Algiers,
Tunis, and Tripoli
United States vs.
Great Britain
United States vs.
Creek Indians
Texas vs. Mexico War of Texas
Independence
Mexican-American
War
U.S. Civil War
Spanish-American
War
United States vs.
Mexico
Union vs.
Confederacy
United States vs.
Spain
1914-1918
1939-1945
1950-1953
1960-1975
1961
1983
1989
1990-1991
1995-1996
2001
2003
World War I
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Grenada
US Invasion of
Panama
Persian Gulf War
Intervention in
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Invasion of
Afghanistan
Invasion of Iraq
Axis Powers:
Germany, Italy,
Japan vs. Major
Allied Powers:
United States, Great
Britain, France, and
Russia
United States (as part of the United
Nations) and South
Korea vs. North
Korea and
Communist China
United States and
South Vietnam vs.
North Vietnam
United States vs.
Cuba
United States
Intervention
United States vs.
Panama
United States and
Coalition Forces vs.
Iraq
United States as part of NATO acted peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
United States and
Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism.
United States and
Coalition Forces vs.
Iraq
The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the
Constitution's war powers. Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court. (Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
Invasion the public Safety may require it.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
President Bush Declares
“War on Terror”
September 20, 2009
02:00 AM Citation
By: findingDulcinea Staff.
"On This Day: President
Bush Declares “War on
Terror”.”
September 20, 2009.
On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush delivered an inspirational speech to
America that rallied support for the “War on Terror,” which would eventually lead to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/September-October-
08/On-this-Day--President-Bush-Declares--War-on-Terror-.html