WASHINGTON — Sparked by the U.S. military assault on Libya, the struggle between the president and Congress over whether and how America should enter war is raging again.
Did the Constitution authorize President Barack Obama to use force in Libya without Congress’ explicit consent? Was the United Nations Security Council’s authorization enough? Can Congress cut off the mission’s funding? Should it declare war?
This battle between the legislative and executive branches has gone on since the days of George Washington. The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to declare war, but it makes the president commander in chief.
History shows that both institutions claim authority over war decisions, but presidents often have ordered troops into battle without congressional approval. At the same time, Congress often has then threatened to push back in various ways unless the president cuts lawmakers into decisionmaking going forward.
Obama consulted with congressional leaders Friday, the day before ordering military action in Libya — not to ask their advice, but to inform them of his decision. On Monday, he explained the mission in a two-page letter to Capitol Hill.
White House aides note that the Senate voted unanimously on March 1 for the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, which the White House cites as authorization for the international military action.
But not all are satisfied. They question whether Obama complied with the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That requires him to consult Congress before acting and for Congress to approve any military action within 60 to 90 days or it’s canceled.
