The War Powers Resolution: Resolving the Dilemma

THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION: RESOLVING THE DILEMMA Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. he interests to which Alexander Hamilton referred have never been more delicate or momentous than in this nuclear age. Never before have two nations had it in their power to destroy each other and the human race as well. The War Powers Resolution represents one, somewhat awkward effort to ensure that the collective judgment of Congress and the president will apply to the use of that power. There have been other efforts. Few of them, however, have enjoyed the sustained Congressional support that this one has. The involvement of the United States military in Lebanon, Grenada, and Central America focused a good deal of attention on the resolution only a few months ago. The debate was valuable and should be continued . Now is the time to reassess the wisdom and constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution—not during a delicate diplomatic or military operation. The war in Lebanon was an important test ofcongressional support for the War Powers Resolution. United States armed forces had been deployed on an ambiguous mission thatbecame increasingly controversial as hostilities worsened and lives were lost. In addition, it was the first occasion since 1973, when the resolution was enacted, that U.S. forces were introduced into hostilities for a period exceeding the sixty-day deadline contained in the law. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., has been a senator from Maryland since 1969. From 1961 to 1969 he served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Senator Mathias is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. 43 44 SAIS REVIEW Congress responded by reaffirming its commitment to the War Powers Resolution. It passed the statutory authorization required under the law, allowing the continued participation of the marines in the multinational force for eighteen months.1 Although there was substantial opposition to the eighteen-month timetable, the decision to invoke the War Powers Resolution was widely supported.2 The Lebanon situation demonstrated the continuing support in Congress for the resolution. In more than a decade of operation Congress has never voted on a measure to repeal the resolution, while there have been several votes regarding its application in Lebanon, Central America, and the Caribbean.3 Most recently, the House of Representatives voted 408 to 23, and the Senate 64 to 20, to apply the sixty-day limit of the War Powers Resolution to the deployment of U.S. troops in Grenada.4 The congressional commitment to the War Powers Resolution can be attributed to a number of factors. First and foremost, the public has demonstrated a clear and continuing wish to be involved in any decision to use U.S. armed forces overseas. The resolution was, in part, Congress's reaction to the public's lack of influence in the Vietnam War. Today the public's concerned response to events in Central America—reflected by a steady stream of U.S. citizens visiting the region at great personal expense—is a strong indication that the American people do not intend to allow a similar situation to develop. This is not to suggest that contemporary support for the War Powers Resolution can be ascribed entirely to the specter of Vietnam. In fact, the movement for war-powers legislation was afoot long before the war in Vietnam began. The record is replete with instances where Congress responded legislatively to presidential infringement of its constitutional authority to decide questions ofwar.5 In the words ofone historian, "Nearly every president who extended the reach of the White House provoked a reaction toward a more restrictive theory of the presidency, even if the reaction never quite cut presidential power back to its earlier level."6 1.P.L. 93-148, Section 5(b). 2.The Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution, P.L. 98-1 19, was passed by a vote of 54 to 40 in the Senate and 253 to 156 in the House of Representatives. 3.Senator Barry Goldwater introducted S.2030 to repeal the War Powers Resolution on 3 1 October 1983. It was referred to, but never reported out of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 4.Although both houses of Congress supported measures declaring that the 60-day period...