AHC: US Congress approves a conflict against a President's wishes

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
This has happened before, specifically in the case of the Spanish-American war, which McKinley opposed and didn't ask for and Congress declared anyway. Let's make it happen again, but this time after 1945 (POD can be before, just not the war). Congress can either declare a war or pass an authorization for the use of military force, and it doesn't matter who they target as long as the President opposes it.
 
Somehing like this happens in Arc Light (Eric L Harry) after he Russian nuclear strike The incumbent President refuses to prosecute the wr Congress has declared. For this reason and his complicity in causing the nuclear exchange the President is impeached and replaced
 
This has happened before, specifically in the case of the Spanish-American war, which McKinley opposed and didn't ask for and Congress declared anyway.

While initially, McKinley was opposed to the war, he lost all of his allies except for Thomas Bracket Reed, and on April 11, 1898 McKinley and Reed ended their opposition to the war. In fact, McKinley asked Congress to send American troops to Cuba.

So, not quite what I'd call "against his wishes".
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
While initially, McKinley was opposed to the war, he lost all of his allies except for Thomas Bracket Reed, and on April 11, 1898 McKinley and Reed ended their opposition to the war. In fact, McKinley asked Congress to send American troops to Cuba.

So, not quite what I'd call "against his wishes".

From what you said it seems like the only reason why he switched his position was because events were going against him.


Seems like the likeliest outcome for such a situation.
 
maybe the 1956 Suez Crisis?

And in general, I'd look at the Eisenhower years. Of the 8 years of his administration, the Republicans controlled Congress during some of these years, but the Democrats also during some. The Democrats said we were being 'weak' on defense, said there was a 'missile gap' even though we were way ahead of the Soviets, so much do that the Soviets dared not agree to mutual inspections and tip their hand on how few they had. Might esp. look at LBJ who in late 50s was majority leader in Senate, and ? ? who was mainly domestic policy politician using foreign policy claims as tool ? ?

It was actually middle-aged guys bucking against a somewhat older fellow (past war hero). very much social monkey, hierarchical behavior.
 
Last edited:
maybe the 1956 Suez Crisis?

The more I look at Suez, the more remote victory for the Franco-British alliance looks. I mean, even within the Commonwealth, you had St. Laurent and Nehru oppose Suez entirely (with the argument that all Nasser did was nationalize a company) and even Robert Menzies went from being a full-fledged supporter to being opposed. It also appears that very few people were willing to go to war with Egypt, and that Eden's support of war was what caused the end of Suez. At the most, an operation to retake the Suez Canal could likely be stomached, but not the guerrilla war that would take place afterwards.
 
Today, this doesn't look like much of question; if the prez don't wanna, not gonna happen. It does, however, beg a question I've been mulling for years. Our style now is to proceed to military action without a declaration of war. How about a strategy of declaring war, then just making threatening moves, which the opponent is pretty much obligated to heed, preventing commerce between that country and others (sanctions at the point of a gun), seizing assets (even tankers filled with oil), etc. If they want a shooting war, they have to start it. Ulcers and nervous breakdowns all around the whole frigging world...
 

EMTSATX

Banned
Can I ask a question? I have always been under the impression that the House in Congress declare War. Then I thought either the President or Secretary of State would sign it. Is that not true?

As the President has his own party in power most of the time how likely is this?
 
Can I ask a question? I have always been under the impression that the House in Congress declare War. Then I thought either the President or Secretary of State would sign it. Is that not true?

As the President has his own party in power most of the time how likely is this?

A declaration of war is like any other law passed by Congress; both houses must pass it, and the president can veto it (and the veto can theoretically be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both houses).

Incidentally, while there is no case of a president vetoing a declaration of war, there *is* a case of a president vetoing a congressional declaration that the war was over: Wilson vetoed the (GOP-controlled) Congress' declaration of a separate peace with Germany in 1920. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03E2DD143AEE32A2575BC2A9639C946195D6CF&legacy=true This led to the taunt, "He kept us out of peace"...
 
Maybe if there is a crisis in the lame-duck period after an election but before the new President takes office? The President-Elect urges Congress, which is dominated by his party, to declare war. The sitting President of the opposite party opposes war. Congress swiftly approves the war and on January 20 it is approved by the new President.
 
The more I look at Suez, the more remote victory for the Franco-British alliance looks. I mean, even within the Commonwealth, you had St. Laurent and Nehru oppose Suez entirely (with the argument that all Nasser did was nationalize a company) and even Robert Menzies went from being a full-fledged supporter to being opposed. It also appears that very few people were willing to go to war with Egypt, and that Eden's support of war was what caused the end of Suez. At the most, an operation to retake the Suez Canal could likely be stomached, but not the guerrilla war that would take place afterwards.
Doesn't have to be rational.

People take a position for psychological reasons, or for status in the social environment. And then it takes in a momentum all its own.
 
Somehing like this happens in Arc Light (Eric L Harry) after he Russian nuclear strike The incumbent President refuses to prosecute the wr Congress has declared. For this reason and his complicity in causing the nuclear exchange the President is impeached and replaced
I have that book. It was because he also warned the Chinese of a Russian attack.
 
maybe the 1956 Suez Crisis?

Absolutely not. Nobody advocated that the US go to war with Nasser--all that Ike's critics objected to was his actually undermining the Anglo-Franco-Israeli intervention. And anyway, as Ike's crushing re-election showed, his critics were a hopeless minority. Ike's stance on Suez didn't even hurt him with the Jewish vote; he got 40 percent of it in 1956 as against 36 percent in 1952. https://books.google.com/books?id=TP4g-RhUJmcC&pg=PA242
 
A declaration of war is like any other law passed by Congress; both houses must pass it, and the president can veto it (and the veto can theoretically be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both houses).

It turns out that this is more complicated than I thought!

"Surprisingly, given the wealth of literature on the original intent of the War Powers Clause, no scholar has argued that the original understanding was that the President could not veto a declaration of war. This is particularly striking because modern scholars have argued on textualist grounds that the War Powers Clause means precisely what it says--that 'Congress shall have power . . . To declare War'--and the President cannot veto such declarations. [FN189] Only two scholars, Dean Ely and Gregory Sidak, have even raised the possibility that the original understanding was that the President could not veto declarations of war, and they dismiss the possibility rapidly. [FN190] Instead, they argue on purely textual ground that declarations of war fall within Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the Presentment Clause, which requires that every congressional 'Order, Resolution, or Vote' be presented to the President for his signature or veto. [FN191] The problem
with this argument is that the Framers understood the Presentment Clause narrowly. That is, if all congressional orders, resolutions, and votes must be presented to the President, this presumably applies, not just to declarations of war, but also to congressional proposals for constitutional amendments. However, in the 1798 case Hollingsworth v. Virginia, [FN192] the one early Presentment Clause case, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that the Eleventh *728 Amendment was invalid because it had not been signed by the President. The Court observed that the Presentment Clause 'applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation . . . .' [FN193] A congressional declaration of war, like a congressional decision to propose amendments, would seem to fall outside the category of 'ordinary cases of legislation.'

"The other principal piece of evidence on which Ely and Sidak rely is that Madison signed the declaration of war against England which Congress passed in 1812. [FN194] But Presidents sign documents for political reasons--even when they know the signature has no legal consequence--in order to highlight a personal endorsement. For example, despite Hollingsworth, on the eve of the Civil War, President Buchanan signed the congressionally-approved Corwin Amendment, which would have barred subsequent amendments banning slavery, [FN195] and President Lincoln signed the Thirteenth Amendment after it was approved by Congress in 1865. [FN196] The real question is not whether Madison signed the declaration, but what significance he attached to that signing. Evidence of Madison's intent can be found in his previously-quoted message to Congress and his proclamation following the declaration of war. Neither document is discussed by Ely or Sidak. Both documents, however, clearly state that the decision whether to go to war is purely congressional. According to Madison's war message, '[T]he Constitution wisely confides [the decision about whether to go to war] to the legislative department of the Government.' [FN197] And, according to Madison's proclamation, '[The Members of] Congress . . . have declared [war] by their act.' [FN198] The President is not part of the process. Ely's and Sidak's position is further undercut by the evidence concerning the 1798 controversy over whether to go to war with France (a subject that neither discusses). [FN199]"

https://web.archive.org/web/2007040...culty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/treanor.htm
 
I suppose that theoretically if there were a President Bryan or President La Follette in 1917, Congress might pass a declaration of war and defy him to veto it.
 

Deleted member 94680

I suppose a scenario with the President being from one party and the House being dominated by the other party could produce this?

Say an unpopular, isolationist President trying to use diplomacy and "soft power" to diffuse a Crisis up against a firebrand interventionist Majority Leader (with eyes on the Presidency) who rallies the House to Declare War as a challenge to the authority and the standing of the President.
 
Top