Has the Supreme Court ever clearly distinguished between the power to “declare war” and the power to “make war”?
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
I’m curious whether the U.S. Supreme Court has ever directly addressed the distinction between the constitutional power to “declare war” versus the idea of “make war.”
During the Constitutional Convention, the original draft of the Constitution reportedly gave Congress the power to “make war.” The delegates(after a brief debate) later changed the wording to “declare war,” which some historians argue was meant to leave the President with the ability to respond to sudden attacks while reserving the formal decision to enter war to Congress.
My question is: Has the Supreme Court ever clearly interpreted what this change actually means? Specifically:
• Has the Court discussed why the Convention shifted from “make war” to “declare war”? • Has it articulated a constitutional distinction between the two powers? • Are there cases where the Court meaningfully analyzed that drafting change when discussing executive vs. congressional war powers? I’m aware of cases like The Prize Cases and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which touch on executive power during wartime, but I’m not sure if the Court has ever directly explained the textual shift from “make” to “declare.”
Would appreciate any cases, scholarship, or historical discussions that address this point.
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
I’m curious whether the U.S. Supreme Court has ever directly addressed the distinction between the constitutional power to “declare war” versus the idea of “make war.”
During the Constitutional Convention, the original draft of the Constitution reportedly gave Congress the power to “make war.” The delegates(after a brief debate) later changed the wording to “declare war,” which some historians argue was meant to leave the President with the ability to respond to sudden attacks while reserving the formal decision to enter war to Congress.
My question is: Has the Supreme Court ever clearly interpreted what this change actually means? Specifically:
• Has the Court discussed why the Convention shifted from “make war” to “declare war”? • Has it articulated a constitutional distinction between the two powers? • Are there cases where the Court meaningfully analyzed that drafting change when discussing executive vs. congressional war powers? I’m aware of cases like The Prize Cases and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which touch on executive power during wartime, but I’m not sure if the Court has ever directly explained the textual shift from “make” to “declare.”
Would appreciate any cases, scholarship, or historical discussions that address this point.
Has the Supreme Court ever clearly distinguished between the power to “declare war” and the power to “make war”?
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
I’m curious whether the U.S. Supreme Court has ever directly addressed the distinction between the constitutional power to “declare war” versus the idea of “make war.”
During the Constitutional Convention, the original draft of the Constitution reportedly gave Congress the power to “make war.” The delegates(after a brief debate) later changed the wording to “declare war,” which some historians argue was meant to leave the President with the ability to respond to sudden attacks while reserving the formal decision to enter war to Congress.
My question is: Has the Supreme Court ever clearly interpreted what this change actually means? Specifically:
• Has the Court discussed why the Convention shifted from “make war” to “declare war”? • Has it articulated a constitutional distinction between the two powers? • Are there cases where the Court meaningfully analyzed that drafting change when discussing executive vs. congressional war powers? I’m aware of cases like The Prize Cases and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which touch on executive power during wartime, but I’m not sure if the Court has ever directly explained the textual shift from “make” to “declare.”
Would appreciate any cases, scholarship, or historical discussions that address this point.
0 Comments
0 Shares
29 Views
0 Reviews
