A Presidential Ticket That Supports the War Powers Act?
In 2013, when President Barack Obama was considering bombing Syria, Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., went to a local grocery store in his district to gauge public opinion. He asked everyone coming out of the store whether they supported bombing Syria, and to his surprise, every single person said no. This encounter had a profound impact on Walz’s stance on war, and he became a vocal advocate against new wars in Syria and a defender of congressional war powers.
Walz, now Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, has a long history of opposing military interventions and supporting congressional authority over war powers. He ran for the House in 2006 on an anti-Iraq war platform and has been active in efforts to prevent U.S. involvement in Syria and Yemen. He co-sponsored every war powers resolution aimed at imposing congressional authority on the U.S. role in the war on Yemen.
What sets Walz and Harris apart is their unified support for key legal interpretations that have significant implications for war powers. Democrats have traditionally been critical of the expansive presidential powers to make war, but the Obama administration never fully renounced those powers. Walz and Harris, on the other hand, have taken on-the-record stances in favor of using legislation to limit presidential war powers.
One example of their support for congressional war powers is their early backing of the Yemen War Powers Resolution, which directed the president to remove U.S. troops from hostilities in Yemen. This resolution became the first since the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to pass both chambers of Congress. Walz and Harris also voted for an Iran war powers resolution following President Donald Trump’s assassination of a top Iranian military commander.
In addition to opposing interventions, Walz has supported efforts to revoke and reissue more restrained versions of the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs) that formed the legal basis for the “war on terror.” He co-sponsored a bill in 2017 that would have repealed these AUMFs and replaced them with a narrower authorization with a three-year sunset.
Having a presidential ticket that recognizes the limits of war-making powers is crucial, especially in the current context of conflicts in Gaza and Yemen. Advocates for humanitarian relief emphasize the importance of oversight and the need for a more peaceful and constitutionally sound foreign policy.
Walz’s opposition to war in Syria and his support for congressional war powers were driven by his constituents’ anti-war views. He believes that after years of war, the American public has the right to weigh in and expect their views to be represented in Congress. Walz has consistently shown a commitment to the constitutional requirement that Congress declares war and controls the president’s ability to engage in military actions.
The War Powers Resolution defines the introduction of armed forces into hostilities to include various activities, such as coordinating with foreign military forces engaged in hostilities. The Yemen war powers resolutions co-sponsored by Walz and Harris harnessed this broad interpretation of “hostilities” to include the crucial support the U.S. was providing to the Saudi-led coalition bombing Yemen.
The perspective on “hostilities” is particularly relevant today, as the U.S. has shifted from large-scale invasions to proxy wars and secret drone programs. Proxy wars allow the U.S. to wage conflicts without public support, making it crucial for presidential candidates to recognize the limits of war-making powers.
While Walz and Harris’s positions on war powers may evolve if they take the White House, their records provide hope for advocates of restraint. It is essential to hold them accountable and ensure they act according to the Constitution and the law. Senators Chris Murphy and Chris Coons, who also support the Yemen war powers resolution, have been suggested as potential options for secretary of state.
In contrast, President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have a history of suppressing dissident views on war powers and granting broad powers to the executive branch. Walz and Harris’s support for congressional war powers offers a fresh perspective and the potential for a more peaceful and constitutionally sound foreign policy.
