Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 1
    I would agree. Congress has to power to declare war and to appropriate funds for wars, but it can't force the President to actually use force in a declared war or to actually spend the money it appropriates to carry out a war. Commented Feb 23, 2023 at 4:07
  • @ohwilleke It can always impeach the President for failing to prosecute the war or use appropriated funds for war. Commented Feb 23, 2023 at 12:22
  • @hszmv Even an impeachment doesn't necessarily force the President or a successor President to actual use military force. And, an impeaching Congress doesn't have much control over who the successor will be. Generally, the VP will be at least moderately aligned with the President politically. Commented Feb 23, 2023 at 16:40
  • So Congress could just introduce a poison pill, ex: if the hated country's president is not assassinated in the next 365 days, the Department of Education gets nothing in the next federal budget. Commented Feb 25, 2023 at 16:06