Search

This paper examines whether constitutional interpretations of the proper roles of the executive and the legislative branches influence Congress members' voting decisions on use of force votes. Specifically, the authors examine the hypothesis that some members are presidentialists--those whose constitutional interpretations favor the executive--and others are congressionalists--those whose constitutional interpretations defend congressional prerogatives. We examined members of Congress who served continuously in either the US House of Representatives or the US Senate from 1990-1999. We identified possible congressionalists and presidentialists using all roll call votes of resolutions to authorize the use of force, and examined floor speeches in the Congressional Record to see how these members explained their votes. We conclude some members of Congress do take constitutional interpretations into account when casting these votes, and justify their actions based upon their reading of the Constitution. Thus, they shape congressional debate and voting outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the use of the constitution as a convenient instrument for making war in the United States. But the founders of the constitution in the country also recognized the risks to republican government in permitting untrammeled power to an executive. The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of the country lays out a three-stage scenario. The WPR apparently enables the U.S. Congress to limit the ability of the president of the country to unilaterally dispense American military power. Interconnected procedures designed to involve congressional debate, deliberation, and decision whenever a president moves to use military force overseas are provided by the WPR.