War Powers: We Must Do Better Than the Current Monarchism

American presidents have gathered too much power to take the country into war. Toward the end of the Trump Administration, a movement to transfer some of that power back to Congress appeared to be gathering steam, driven in part by bipartisan war fatigue and in part by concern about what the erratic and impulsive Donald Trump might unilaterally do. But these efforts have largely petered out. This is a problem, and not just because Trump could well find his way back into the presidency. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, placing so much power in the hands of one person isn’t good for democratic governance or conflict prevention.

The concentration of war powers in the executive branch has become increasingly accepted as a structural feature of American government over the past eight decades. Since World War II, presidents have frequently asserted broad authority to launch wars or expand U.S. involvement in them without getting permission from the legislative branch. Although Congress authorized some of the biggest modern entanglements (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq), the list of unsanctioned adventures is longer still. Congress did not authorize the U.S. military to wage war in Korea, enter into the so-called Tanker War with Iran, intervene in Libya, strike Syria, or refuel Saudi sorties bombing Yemen. Nor did it authorize the executive branch to expand the Vietnam War to Cambodia and Laos, or to redraw the contours of the post-9/11 war on terror to include ISIS and other groups that did not even exist at the time of the 2001 attack.

The full article can be read in Democracy Journal.