The Congress shall have power to declare war

This discussion has explored the intricate nuances of war powers in the U.S. Constitution, primarily focusing on Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 which grants Congress the power to "declare war." We delved into Senator Adam Schiff's recent X post, where he wrote about the Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that “The Congress shall have power to declare war” which champions this constitutional provision, advocating for congressional consent before military action. 

A core tenet of our conversation established that, constitutionally, the President does not have the power to declare war; this authority rests solely with Congress. The President's role as Commander-in-Chief allows for the direction of military forces once authorized, or for immediate defensive actions to fight against enemies. President is also Chief Executive, and Chief Diplomate of the U.S. Interests Abroad. We clarified that Congress's authorization, whether a formal declaration of war or an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), typically requires a simple majority vote in both the House and Senate. Exceptions for supermajorities exist for actions like overriding a presidential veto or ratifying treaties.

We then examined the President's actions in urgent, speedy, critical situations where congressional approval might not be immediately feasible. It was acknowledged that the President has the inherent power to repel sudden attacks or threats and first respond his military act to protect U.S. citizens and interests abroad. However, even these actions are subject to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which mandates consultation with Congress, notification within 48 hours of introducing forces into hostilities, and a 60-90 day time limit unless Congress provides explicit authorization. This resolution, though often challenged by presidents, represents Congress's attempt to reclaim its constitutional prerogatives in a modern context. Our discussion further clarified the distinction between "war" (the factual state of armed conflict, regardless of declaration) and a "declaration of war" (the formal legal act by Congress). We noted that modern international law and practice often see armed conflicts occurring without formal declarations but intentionally or even without certain purpose, as seen in many engagements since WWII.

My input highlighted that the framers of the Constitution, in 1787, could not have foreseen today's threats like global terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, or cyber warfare, nor the instant speed of modern attacks. They were primarily concerned with preventing a single executive from unilaterally initiating large-scale, state-on-state wars, akin to the imperial conflicts prevalent in their era (e.g., those involving the British, Spanish, and French empires). The clause was a check against a monarchical executive, ensuring deliberation and consensus from the people's representatives. I also emphasized my observation that the newly independent United States faced a full risk of losing its sovereignty to these European imperial powers or any other new or known or unknown powers! I put forth the idea that the "Declare War" clause might have been conceived not only for the formal Congress we see today but also as a "continuing guardian body of the land in all circumstances," even in a scenario where sovereignty might be lost or domestic powers and rules are compromised.

Therefore, in response to my interpretation, it was clarified that while Congress is indeed a guardian of the nation's well-being, the "Declare War" clause fundamentally presumes a functioning, sovereign nation and dictates the process for initiating war within that sovereigned framework including protecting interests abroad in all possible way. It's about allocating power to prevent abuse within a sovereign state, rather than prescribing governmental function after sovereignty is lost. If sovereignty were truly lost, the U.S. Constitution, by definition, would cease to be the operative legal framework for governance in that territory. A Congress body would remain active by continuing practice and inheritance as long time as required and continue functioning among the states people and patriot armed soldiers in order to regain the liberty and the nation's sovereignty. 

Finally, we explored how Congress can respond to modern challenges. Recommendations included reforming the War Powers Resolution for clearer definitions and stronger enforcement, utilizing sunset clauses for AUMFs, formalizing consultation requirements, enhancing congressional expertise, and leveraging the power of the purse. This underscores the ongoing tension and evolution in interpreting constitutional war powers in light of 21st-century grand theater of the battles and peace vision.