War Powers Act Weakens United States Presidency (1984)

by Jeffrey Bingham Mead, Board of Contributors
Greenwich Time, Greenwich, Connecticut
Friday, February 3, 1984


With the commitment of American military forces to trouble spots around the world, such as Grenada and Lebanon, it is truly remarkable that the importance of the War Powers Act of 1973 has been mentioned so little by the news media and that so few people seem to know what it is and what its effect is on the role America plays in the international arena.

This piece of legislation has been beyond a doubt highly influential in the formulation and implementation of US foreign-policy around the globe. As our international commitment to the world at large grows, our ability to protect our national interests and to defend the liberties of people when called to do so must be backed by public trust and confidence in the good judgment of the president as commander-in-chief to use military force if necessary. 

The War Powers Act, a legacy of the political interplay between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government during the early 1970s, illustrates a flawed and politically self-serving effort by Congress to reassert its role in making foreign-policy and in deciding on the use of military force.

Under the terms of the War Powers Act the president is allowed to commit American armed forces to belligerent situations or where a situation is in danger of becoming hostile by a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency entailing an attack on the United States, its territories, or its armed forces. The president is urged to consult with the Congress before any engagement of U.S. forces to hostilities or impending hostilities and to consult Congress subsequently on a regular basis. The president is required to report in writing to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempor of the Senate within 48 hours. Both are authorized to reconvene Congress if it is not in session to consider the situation confronted by the president.

The legislation further requires the cessation of a troop commitment within 60 days after submission of the president's initial report unless Congress declares war, sanctions the duration of a commitment, or is unable to reconvene due to armed aggression against United States.

There is an allowance for a 30-day extension if the president has ascertained and corroborated to Congress that unavoidable military requirements with regard to the safety of American forces the necessitates an extension to usher in a prompt disengagement the forces.

Finally, the War Powers Act allows Congress to direct the president to disengage troops if American forces are involved in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific congressional approval.

With the Vietnam War and the turmoil over the continued bombing of Cambodia past, Congress displayed an invitation to reassert for itself a role in the direction of U.S. foreign policy. However, more than any other reason, the passage of the War Powers Act was a reflection of President Nixon's political troubles in Washington as compounded by the Watergate scandal and the firing a Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Under such conditions the pendulum of power swung away from the executive branch, and thus Congress was able to assert power at the expense of a temporarily weakened  period for the American presidency. Long-term repercussions were clearly not taken into account with regard to future situations and for international commitments the United States might face.

Finally, the danger does indeed exist that an alteration of presidential power could deprive the commander-in-chief of the capacity to take the necessary exertion of power to deter aggressors or potential aggressors in a persuasive way.

One of the serious flaws in the War Powers Act concerned consultation. In every way imaginable, what Congress wants is impossible. Former President Gerald R. Ford, in a speech at the University of Kentucky, recalled that during the Danang evacuation Congress was in Easter recess and "not one of the key bypartisan leaders of Congress was in Washington." 

Ford detailed that the congressional leaders were scattered as follows: "two were in Mexico, three were in Greece, one was in the Middle East, one was in Europe, and two were in the People's Republic of China. The rest we found in 12 widely scattered states of the union." 

Furthermore, when Americans have been evacuated from Lebanon, Congress had adjourned for the day, and Ford once again pointed out the tremendous difficulties in contacting congressional leaders. 

It is perfectly clear today "that critical world events, especially military operations, seldom wait for the Congress to meet," as Ford stated in the same speech. 

With the rise in tensions around the world and threats to Americans abroad increasing, as well as the propagation of renewed terrorism, it is as if Congress had forgotten that few, if any, terrorist groups or outbreaks of hostilities occur according to the times Congress meets.

Lately, Congress has resorted to subtle threats to the president over Grenada and Lebanon to impose its powers under the legislation. In the case of Grenada, angry shouts arose from Congress with, for example, Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D – N.Y., outwardly insinuating that President Reagan was imposing democracy by the tip of a bayonet. 

Two things happened that caused Congress to interestingly change its mind; namely, that are forces were successful and majority of their constituents as well as the public at large supported the president's actions. Such a double standard and lack of unity is dangerous.

I sincerely hope that Congress will have the courage to repeal the War Powers Act. The act is unconstitutional in that it undermines the president; its repeal would send a much-needed signal to our allies and adversaries abroad that America had renewed confidence its confidence and unity behind the president is commander-in-chief and was willing to entrust such awesome responsibilities where they belong.


Jeffrey Bingham Mead is a lifelong resident of Greenwich at a direct descendent of one of the founding families of the town. Is a member of the Greenwich time board of contributors.