Can Congress deploy troops or drop bombs against the President’s will?

[darklordoftech]

I know that Congress can prohibit the President from or permit the President to deploy troops or drop bombs, but can Congress do either against the President’s will?

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm inclined to say they can declare war against the President's will, but the President as Commander-in-Chief, can simply refuse to deploy troops or do any action that would constitute an act of war.

[dead0man]

I'm inclined to say they can declare war against the President's will, but the President as Commander-in-Chief, can simply refuse to deploy troops or do any action that would constitute an act of war.

this is true.  Of course if ~80% of the country is for action along with Congress, the military might just go at it anyway while the politicos do a "soft coup" at home.  For example, say Putin starts dropping tactical nukes and we sit on our hands.  Then he invades Estonia, and we sit on our hands.  Then he nukes Warsaw, and everyone is like, "whoa, we have to do something now", Congress declares war and the sitting POTUS says "nah".  We've got us a problem at that point.

[politicallefty]

I'm inclined to say they can declare war against the President's will, but the President as Commander-in-Chief, can simply refuse to deploy troops or do any action that would constitute an act of war.

That's my understanding as well. Congress can set the terms for how the President as Commander-in-Chief is to prosecute a war, but that's merely setting the outer bounds of what can be done. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973, was one way Congress clawed back its authority in this realm. In the case of a President refusing to prosecute a war, no, Congress cannot force action. A declaration of war is a duly passed law. The President is the leader of the executive branch through which enforcement of the law is exercised. (It's far easier for Congress to compel NOT to do something than to compel to do something.)

In any event, if Congress feels that the President is not complying with the law, they can have the President impeached and removed from office. That is a sole prerogative of Congress and the ultimate way to resolve a dispute between the legislative and executive branches.

In terms of the courts, they are generally extremely loath to touch anything surrounding the issue of war or the powers of the Commander-in-Chief. Take a look at Schlesinger v. Holtzman.

[David Hume]

I'm inclined to say they can declare war against the President's will, but the President as Commander-in-Chief, can simply refuse to deploy troops or do any action that would constitute an act of war.

That's my understanding as well. Congress can set the terms for how the President as Commander-in-Chief is to prosecute a war, but that's merely setting the outer bounds of what can be done. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973, was one way Congress clawed back its authority in this realm. In the case of a President refusing to prosecute a war, no, Congress cannot force action. A declaration of war is a duly passed law. The President is the leader of the executive branch through which enforcement of the law is exercised. (It's far easier for Congress to compel NOT to do something than to compel to do something.)

In any event, if Congress feels that the President is not complying with the law, they can have the President impeached and removed from office. That is a sole prerogative of Congress and the ultimate way to resolve a dispute between the legislative and executive branches.

In terms of the courts, they are generally extremely loath to touch anything surrounding the issue of war or the powers of the Commander-in-Chief. Take a look at Schlesinger v. Holtzman.

The problem is the exact powers of the Commander-in-Chief is not well defined. Do you think the Congress can pass a bill requiring we have to deploy 10 division in Poland to fight against the Russian invasion? This may be interpreted as necessary and proper for carrying into Execution of the declaration of war against Russia.

[politicallefty]

The problem is the exact powers of the Commander-in-Chief is not well defined. Do you think the Congress can pass a bill requiring we have to deploy 10 division in Poland to fight against the Russian invasion? This may be interpreted as necessary and proper for carrying into Execution of the declaration of war against Russia.

That would be perfectly permissible under the Constitution. Congress has enumerated powers on this issue beyond just the power to declare war. I would argue that the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief are generally cabined by the laws enacted by Congress under its enumerated powers. Congress can specifically direct the President to take certain actions or leave it more open-ended.

As much as politicians like to talk about co-equal branches of government, they are not. Congress is supposed to be the most powerful branch. It is Article I for a reason and has ultimate power over the other branches.

[David Hume]

The problem is the exact powers of the Commander-in-Chief is not well defined. Do you think the Congress can pass a bill requiring we have to deploy 10 division in Poland to fight against the Russian invasion? This may be interpreted as necessary and proper for carrying into Execution of the declaration of war against Russia.

That would be perfectly permissible under the Constitution. Congress has enumerated powers on this issue beyond just the power to declare war. I would argue that the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief are generally cabined by the laws enacted by Congress under its enumerated powers. Congress can specifically direct the President to take certain actions or leave it more open-ended.

As much as politicians like to talk about co-equal branches of government, they are not. Congress is supposed to be the most powerful branch. It is Article I for a reason and has ultimate power over the other branches.

This basically means the answer to OP is yes.

I fully agree that Congress are superior to other two branches. I am curious within the current Constitution, how much can Congress encroach the power of the other two branches. It seems the Congress can do basically whatever they want, like pass laws to force the President to execute what they want during the war, and require the President to appoint officials from shortlist they provided. For judicial, they can pass a law to request SC can only strike down laws by unanimous vote. I am not sure if they can directly get rid of judicial review.

[politicallefty]

This basically means the answer to OP is yes.

I don't agree. All of those actions I mentioned must be done through the executive branch, either through the President or through other executive branch officials. They could all theoretically refuse. If the President refuses to enforce the law, Congress can opt to impeach and remove him.

I fully agree that Congress are superior to other two branches. I am curious within the current Constitution, how much can Congress encroach the power of the other two branches. It seems the Congress can do basically whatever they want, like pass laws to force the President to execute what they want during the war, and require the President to appoint officials from shortlist they provided. For judicial, they can pass a law to request SC can only strike down laws by unanimous vote. I am not sure if they can directly get rid of judicial review.

Congress has the right to direct the course of a war (or troop movements for that matter). However, they have to be done through the executive branch. Anyone disobeying a duly enacted law from Congress could subject themselves to impeachment and removal. For example, if Congress were to pass a law right now (let's say over the President's veto) that required the US Armed Forces to maintain 100k troops in Poland, the President and/or other executive officials would be required to make that happen. If they didn't, they'd be subject to potential impeachment and removal from office.

As for your point about Congress requiring the President to appoint officials from a pre-approved list, I see no constitutional issues with that. The Senate is supposed to provide both advise and consent. The President is free to ignore the advise of the Senate and the Senate is free to withhold consent whenever it feels like.

I have no idea as to your last point. Congress does have considerable power over the organization of the federal courts, but a proposal like that is probably too far.