|
The President is able to control the armed forces largely at his own discretion, thanks to the War Powers Act, but Congress still has to approve budget allocations. For instance, with Iraq, the President initiated hostilities largely on his own, but Congress nearly unanimously approved the money for it. Bush has had to go back to Congress periodically to ask for more money, and Congress has given it. The recent stirrings among the Democrats is to put their foot down and not give any more money, thus (hopefully) cutting off the President's ability to wage war in Iraq. In reality, Congressional approval of allocations to armed conflicts has become something of a guaranteed rubber stamp. For a Congress to not approve the money would be not only to go against the President, but would also be cast as going against the troops (the logic is ridiculous but nonetheless popularly held). So for all intents and purposes the President has far more power to wage war than Congress... only it's unofficial without a Congressional declaration and it is subject to Congressional approval of the money involved. However, it takes a very agitated Congress to stand up to the President and say 'no'.
Hope that helps. I'm a Poli Sci major and that question just seems really ambiguous.
___________________
|
