Fergus Bordewich Quotes

The power to make war is vested in Congress and not in the President. Congress has no constitutional authority to grant such authority to the president.

... the opinion of the Supreme Court ... ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court, must each be guided by its own opinion of the constitution.

This talk of blindly following the President in everything pertaining to war—except as to his conduct of military operation in the field—is blithering idiocy.... The Constitution still abides. It defines the powers and duties of Congress. It gave Congress every war power, except that it left with the President the right to direct all military operation in the field. It gave him no other war power.

The respective powers of the President and Congress of the United States, in the case of war with foreign powers are yet undetermined. Perhaps they can never be defined.

As the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it do so on the negative side by preventing the competent body [Congress] from deliberating on the question.

Congress no longer declares war or makes budgets. So that's the end of the constitution as a working machine.

The Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States…In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces…while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

The constitution has never greatly bothered any wartime President.

The Congress decides when to make war and the President decides how to make war.

I do not believe that we [Congress] should allow him [the President] to nullify acts of Congress by executive fiat. There is not one syllable in the Constitution which authorizes the President to exercise such power.

The Constitution provided an invitation to the President and Congress to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy.

The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times … the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a law-maker.

The King had no independent authority to wage or declare war, to negotiate or ratify treaties. By assigning a substantial share of these responsibilities to a single executive outside the legislature, the architects of the Presidency created an office far more powerful than the British Monarchy at that time.

The authority to declare war rests in Congress, not in an out-of-control president.

The Constitution's pretty clear. The Federalist papers are pretty clear... They very specifically delegated the power to declare war to Congress. They wanted this to be a congressional decision; they did not want war to be engaged in by the executive without approval of Congress.

Under our Constitution the Congress alone has the power to declare war.

Without the authority of Congress, the President cannot fire a hostile gun in any case except to repel the attacks of the enemy.

Congressional power has not so much been usurped by the Presidency as given up to the Presidency by Congress.

Congress ... is far more than the simple, limited advisory council that most Presidents would like to maintain.

If our forefathers had wanted Congress to be the Commander in Chief, they would have said so.

I do not believe that the President has any powers at all except such as the Constitution expressly gives him or such as are necessarily inferred.

The way I read the Constitution,. the Congress is paid a salary to determine whether we should go to war ... Therefore, I don't think Congress is earning its money.

The President may be right in how he reads the Constitution. But he also may be wrong. And if he is wrong, who is there to tell him so? And if there is no one, the President, of course, is free to pursue his course of erroneous interpretations. What then becomes of our constitutional form of government?

We have not found a way to give Congress control without depriving the President of essential power.