...ie: the Constitution does not grant the President any power at all in initiating offensive military action of any kind.
During the Federal Convention in Philadelphia during the spring and summer of 1787, South Carolina delegate Pierce Butler - according to Madison in his Notes - "was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the nation will support it"...
...but Butler's motion couldn't even attract a second.
Because the great majority of the framers made it crystal clear that while it should be naturally expected that any President would react defensively - without Congress' approval first - if/when America was attacked...
...the President had no constitutional power in waging war at all. In fact, the Chief Executive's only constitutional power concerning war is that s/he will be Commander-in-Chief of America's entire war effort(s) - but only after Congress declares war itself.
And further, in constitutional fact, the President is allowed power in only two instances as far as foreign affairs are concerned: 1) the above mentioned commander-in-chief of US armed forces after war has been declared by Congress, and 2) the President has the constitutional power to receive ambassadors - that's friggin' it.
Congress, on the other hand, was clearly delegated the superior role concerning foreign affairs, as constitutionally they are charged “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” “to raise and support Armies,” to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” to “provide for the common Defense,” and, what the framers felt to be the mother of all powers, “to declare War.”
Madison wrote to Jefferson (who was serving in France during the Convention):
Madison even proposed excluding the President from the negotiation of peace treaties, on the grounds that he might obstruct a settlement out of a desire to derive
During the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, Constitution Convention delegate James Wilson said:
Alexander Hamilton made the distinction even more clear in Federalist 69, asserting that the President's authority:
America's first commander-in-chief put it this way:
Jefferson's Barbary actions are often cited as "evidence" that presidents are justified in initiating military action without Congressional approval...
...but Congress had dictated before Jefferson took office that the ships he eventually sent to meet the pasha “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.” It was to this instruction and authority that Jefferson appealed when he ordered American ships to the Mediterranean. In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to “protect our commerce & chastise their insolence – by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.”
The pasha declared war on America soon after and Jefferson sent more military might his way, all the while insisting that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense”; and that Congress alone could authorize “measures of offense also.” He then told Congress:
In at least ten statutes during that period, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers."
In 1805, Jefferson told Congress that Spain appeared to have an...
In 1800, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase summed up the reigning doctrine:
Do you understand yet that it is Congress - and Congress alone - who is constitutionally allowed to involve America in any offensive military action at all - no matter its scope or purpose?
No?
Well, then...
...how 'bout the earliest instance of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling against a President's unconstitutional directive?
The 1804 case of Little v. Barreme involved a ship commander who, during the Quasi War with France in the late 1790s, had seized a ship that he thought was illegally trading with France. The commander was following a directive from President John Adams in seizing this ship, which had been coming from France. But Congress had authorized President Adams only to seize ships going to France; in short, the president’s directive ventured beyond what congress had called for in this limited war. The Court declared that the commander was liable for damages even though he had acted in accordance with a presidential directive. No such presidential directive could override the authority of Congress, said the Court.
And in 1801, the Supreme's first Chief Justice, in Talbot vs. Seeman, wrote this:
I stand fast waiting for any one to furnish any Constitution-related cite contradicting my primary claim here that no President of the United States of America has any constitutional authority to initiate military action in any way, shape, or form...
...without the specific, constitutional authorization of Congress first.
During the Federal Convention in Philadelphia during the spring and summer of 1787, South Carolina delegate Pierce Butler - according to Madison in his Notes - "was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the nation will support it"...
...but Butler's motion couldn't even attract a second.
Because the great majority of the framers made it crystal clear that while it should be naturally expected that any President would react defensively - without Congress' approval first - if/when America was attacked...
...the President had no constitutional power in waging war at all. In fact, the Chief Executive's only constitutional power concerning war is that s/he will be Commander-in-Chief of America's entire war effort(s) - but only after Congress declares war itself.
And further, in constitutional fact, the President is allowed power in only two instances as far as foreign affairs are concerned: 1) the above mentioned commander-in-chief of US armed forces after war has been declared by Congress, and 2) the President has the constitutional power to receive ambassadors - that's friggin' it.
Congress, on the other hand, was clearly delegated the superior role concerning foreign affairs, as constitutionally they are charged “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” “to raise and support Armies,” to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” to “provide for the common Defense,” and, what the framers felt to be the mother of all powers, “to declare War.”
Madison wrote to Jefferson (who was serving in France during the Convention):
Madison even proposed excluding the President from the negotiation of peace treaties, on the grounds that he might obstruct a settlement out of a desire to derive
During the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, Constitution Convention delegate James Wilson said:
Alexander Hamilton made the distinction even more clear in Federalist 69, asserting that the President's authority:
America's first commander-in-chief put it this way:
Jefferson's Barbary actions are often cited as "evidence" that presidents are justified in initiating military action without Congressional approval...
...but Congress had dictated before Jefferson took office that the ships he eventually sent to meet the pasha “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.” It was to this instruction and authority that Jefferson appealed when he ordered American ships to the Mediterranean. In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to “protect our commerce & chastise their insolence – by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.”
The pasha declared war on America soon after and Jefferson sent more military might his way, all the while insisting that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense”; and that Congress alone could authorize “measures of offense also.” He then told Congress:
In at least ten statutes during that period, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers."
In 1805, Jefferson told Congress that Spain appeared to have an...
In 1800, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase summed up the reigning doctrine:
Do you understand yet that it is Congress - and Congress alone - who is constitutionally allowed to involve America in any offensive military action at all - no matter its scope or purpose?
No?
Well, then...
...how 'bout the earliest instance of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling against a President's unconstitutional directive?
The 1804 case of Little v. Barreme involved a ship commander who, during the Quasi War with France in the late 1790s, had seized a ship that he thought was illegally trading with France. The commander was following a directive from President John Adams in seizing this ship, which had been coming from France. But Congress had authorized President Adams only to seize ships going to France; in short, the president’s directive ventured beyond what congress had called for in this limited war. The Court declared that the commander was liable for damages even though he had acted in accordance with a presidential directive. No such presidential directive could override the authority of Congress, said the Court.
And in 1801, the Supreme's first Chief Justice, in Talbot vs. Seeman, wrote this:
I stand fast waiting for any one to furnish any Constitution-related cite contradicting my primary claim here that no President of the United States of America has any constitutional authority to initiate military action in any way, shape, or form...
...without the specific, constitutional authorization of Congress first.
