Printable View
When I was talking to a friend, and told him that only the Congress had the ability to declare war and not the President, he claimed that since the congress controls the purse strings, they can decide whether or not to fund it, and this whether or not to allow it. So he claims that it is fine for the President to invade Iraq, (especially since he did not "declare war") and that the congress can cut funding.
How do I argue this?
Say that that action is an Act of War, and unless Congress acknowledges there is a State of War, it would violate the "Rules of War" (unofficially) because you are supposed to inform your enemy you are at war with him before you attack him (even if it is the minute before you do so). Also, it the Constitution never gives the President the authority to give marching orders to attack foreign nations.
congress gave up their rights to the president and basically said "you make the call."
it is true they can cut funding, that is why everyone hates the congress.