About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (January 4, 2021)

handle is hein.crs/goveask0001 and id is 1 raw text is: M~ hit I t eb ~n. ¶~i I Updated January 4, 2021 Defense Primer: Legal Authorities for the Use of Military Forces By the Framers' apparent design, to keep thenation's purse and the sword in separate hands andin other ways hinder the nation's embroilment in unnecessary wars, the Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President. Congress is empowered to declare war, provide for and regulate the Armed Forces, and is sue letteis of marque and repris al, as well as to call forth the militia to suppress an insurrection, repel an invasion, or execute the Laws of the Union. The President, as the Commander in Chief, has the responsibility to direct the Armed Forces as they conducthostilities, putdown insurrections, or execute the law when constitutionally authorized to do so. The extent to which the President has independent authority underthe Constitution, withoutexplicit statutory support, to use the military for purposes other than to repel a sudden attackis the subjectoflong-standing debate. At the same time, efforts in Congress to exercise its constitutional war powers in some way thatis perceived to constrain military operations have met with objections that the constitutional separationofpowers is imperiled. Overview Congress has enacted 11 separateformal declarations of war againstforeign nations in five different wars, each time preceded by a presidential request either in writing or in personbefore a joint sessionof Congress. Congres s has also enacted authorizations for the use of force rather than formal declarations of war. Such meas ures have generally authorized military force ag ainst either a named country or unnamed hostile nations in a given region. In most cases, the President has requested the authority; Congress has sometimes given the President less than what he requested. Congress has also authorized the President touse the military forces or the militia domestically to put down insurrections or execute civilian law when certain criteria are met. As noted in CRS Reports R42659 and RL31133, Congress has provided approximately 50 statutory authorizations to use the military forces for foreign or domestic purposes-not including formal declarations of war. As for the use of such authority, CRS Report R42731 lists hundreds ofinstances ofU.S. uses offorce abroad, observing they reflect varying degrees ofintensity and longevity. It notes that most major uses of military force abroad-of the type that might be classified as wars or armed conflicts under international law-his torically had been authorized by Congress. The end of World War Il appears to have heralded a changein this regard. For example, PresidentTruman senttroops to defend South Korea in 1950 under his own authority and a UN Security Councilresolution, but without specific authority from Congress. https ://crs reports War Powers Resolution Concern thattoomuch ofthe warpowershad accretedto the President while Congress's own authority had eroded led to the 1973 enactment of the War Powers Resolution (WPR; P.L. 93-148) over Pres identNixn's veto. The WPR asserts that the Presidenthas the authority to commit U.S. troops to hostilities in only three s ets ofcircumstances. WPR Section 2(c) provides that the President's powers to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into situations of hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to- (I) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces. The WPRalso attempts tocircumscribeimplied sourcesof authority. WPR Section 8 provides that the authorityto introduce Armed Forces is not to be inferred from any provision of law or treaty unless such law, or legislation implementing such treaty- (a) specifically authorizes the introduction of Armed Forces into hostilities or potential hostilities, and (b) states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the WPR. Presidents have taken a broader view of the Commander-in- Chief power to use military force abroad. They have variously asserted as sources of authority United Nations or NATO decisions involving military intervention, appropriations measures, and other statutes that do not specifically cite the WPR. Additionally, they haverelied on the Commander-in-Chief power its elf and the President's foreign affairs authority under Article II of the Constitution. The executive branch has also occasionally attached significance to the failure of Congress to pass measures introduced to prevent or end military operations overseas. It has also interpreted some military uses of force to fall below the threshold ofhostilities within the meaning of the WPR. .conQress.Qov

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most