BILLS TO CONTROL THE PRESIDENT'S WAR POWERS
Currently, Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the President cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration. The 1973 War Powers Act attempted to define when and how the President could send troops to battle by adding strict time frames for reporting to Congress after sending troops to war, in addition to other measures, however it has not had much effect.
And very importantly, if the President decided to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, no one would have the power to stop him. The President has complete legal authority to initiate a nuclear attack.
The following bills in this report attempt to check the President's power to wage war.
THE CURRENT LAW
War Powers in the Constitution
Authorization for the Use of Military Force 2001 PDF
Authorization for the Use of Military Force 2002 PDF
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
TULSI GABBARD AND WALTER JONES RESOLUTION TO END PRESIDENTIAL WARS
The Tulsi Gabbard and Walter Jones bill would define presidential wars not declared by Congress as impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."
HR.922 would do the following:
Defining presidential wars not declared by Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 11 (Declare War Clause) as impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Prohibiting the President from perpetuating ongoing wars or supplying war materials, military troops, trainers, or advisers, military intelligence, financial support or their equivalent in association, cooperation, assistance, or common cause without first receiving congressional authorization
Representative Tulsi Gabbard has said the following about the bill: "For decades, Congress has ceded its Constitutional responsibility of deciding whether or not to declare war, to the President. As a result, we have found ourselves in a state of perpetual war, without a declaration of war by Congress and without input from the American people. Since 9/11 alone, our country has spent trillions of dollars on interventionist regime change wars, costing the lives of many Americans, taking a toll on our veterans, and causing people in our communities to struggle and suffer due to a lack of resources. Our bipartisan resolution aims to end presidential wars, and hold Congress accountable so it does its job in making the serious and costly decision about whether or not to send our nation’s sons and daughters to war."
RELATED NEWS LINKS
PHOTOS & VIDEO: Reps. Gabbard and Jones Lead Bipartisan Resolution to End Presidential Wars (Official Tulsi Gabbard Site)
Jones and Gabbard Host Conference on Resolution to Require Congressional Approval of All Wars (Official Walter Jones Site)
Reps. Gabbard and Jones Lead Bipartisan Resolution To End Presidential Wars (Anti War, 7-18-18)
Proposed Bipartisan Resolution: Wars Not Authorized by Congress An Impeachable Offense (CNS News, 7-18-18)
SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY'S BILL TO UPDATE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE (AUMF)
Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced the Constitutional Consideration for Use of Force Act. Merkley’s bill is an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that provides an alternative to the Corker-Kaine AUMF, that some have criticized as a bill that would allow indefinite war.
Merkley has put his bill forward as an attempt to preserve what he calls a "constitutional vision of war authorization," and maintain Congress's constitutional role in authorizing war.
More details about S.J.Res 61 (Official Merkley Site)
REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA'S BILL - NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL STRIKE AGAINST NORTH KOREA
This bill would prohibit the United States from carrying out a preemptive strike against North Korea without prior approval from Congress. It seeks to block federal agencies, including the Pentagon, from executing budgets related to conducting preemptive strikes against North Korea. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Ro Khanna and cosponsored by 65 lawmakers.
Congressman Ro Khanna Pushes for Diplomacy With North Korea (Ro Khanna Official Site, 1-23-18)
'No Unconstitutional Strike against North Korea Act' Submitted to US House (KBS World Radio, 1-23-18)
BILLS TO LIMIT TRUMP'S AUTHORITY TO LAUNCH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
H.R.669 - Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017
S.200 - Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017
Congressman Lieu, Senator Markey Introduce The Restricting The First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 (Lieu Official Website)
If the President decided to launch a nuclear weapon, Congress could stop him, nor his Secretary of Defense. The military would be duty-bound to follow his orders. He wouldn't even have to ask Congress or the courts for permission. He could consult any and all — or none — of his national security advisers, and no one could legally countermand his order. If he gave the green light using his nuclear codes, a launch order the length of a tweet would be transmitted and carried out within minutes.
Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer has stated the following about Donald Trump's authority to launch a nuclear war:
“The protocol for ordering the use of nuclear weapons endows every president with civilization-ending power. [Trump] has unchecked authority to order a preventive nuclear strike against any nation he wants with a single verbal direction to the Pentagon war room.” (Washington Post). Bruce Blair has also said there is no way to reverse the President's nuclear order once made. And there would be no recalling missiles once launched.
It was the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, passed by Harry Truman, that firmly put the power of the atomic bomb in the hands of the President. This was done with an eye toward future standoffs with the Soviet Union. Congress later held hearings on this issue in the mid-70s, but nothing came of them. In the early 1980s, Jeremy Stone, then the President of the Federation of American Scientists, proposed that Congress ought to pass a law restricting presidential use of nuclear weapons. But this idea was rejected by many legal scholars who noted that Congress has often been far more belligerent than presidents and that the logistics could be complicated. (Washington Post)
In November 2017 for the first time in 40 years the Senate held a hearing on Presidential authority and nuclear war. This hearing further confirmed that the President does indeed hold complete authority to launch a nuclear attack.
CURRENTLY, NO ONE CAN STOP THE PRESIDENT FROM LAUNCHING A NUCLEAR WAR
No one can stop President Trump from using nuclear weapons. That's by design (The Washington Post, 12-1-16)
Why President Trump Has Exclusive Authority To Order A Nuclear Strike (NPR, 10-3-17)
Could Anyone Stop Trump from Launching Nukes? The Answer: No (Snopes, 11-13-17)
Presidents have too much power over U.S. nukes. Especially President Trump. (The Washington Post, 8-18-17)
SENATE HEARING 2017 ON TRUMP'S AUTHORITY TO LAUNCH NUCLEAR ATTACK
Full Committee Hearing Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons (Immediately following Business Meeting) VIDEOS AND TRANSCRIPTS OF TESTIMONIES
NEWS ARTICLES ON SENATE HEARING
A Nuclear Reckoning: Senators Ponder the President’s Power to Launch Armageddon (War on the Rocks, 11-24-17)
'Then What Happens?': Congress Questions the President's Authority to Wage Nuclear War (The Atlantic, 11-15-17)
Senate committee questions Trump's nuclear authority (Reuters, 11-14-17)
RELATED WORLD FUTURE FUND REPORTS