AMAC Exclusive – By W.J. Lee
The decision to declare war is one of the most consequential powers the Constitution vests with the United States Congress. However, a supermajority of senators recently signaled that they were willing to effectively delegate that power to America’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in Europe.
In July, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) offered an amendment to the FY 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to, as he put it, “reassert that Article 5 of the NATO treaty does not supersede Congress’s power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of our Constitution to declare war.”
Known as the “collective defense provision,” Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an “armed attack against one… shall be considered an attack against them all.” In effect, it means that every NATO member has an obligation to come to the aid of any member country in the event of a military attack.
Discussion of Article 5 has made headlines recently as the volatile Ukraine-Russia war has inched dangerously close to NATO member states like Poland.
In an alarming result, the Senate overwhelmingly voted down Paul’s proposal. Only 16 Republican senators supported the amendment clarifying that the NATO treaty does not supersede the Constitution’s mandate for Congress to declare war.
Those who joined Paul included: Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Braun (R-IN), Roger Marshall (R-KS), John Kennedy (R-LA), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Steve Daines (R-MT), James Lankford (R-OK), J.D. Vance (R-OH), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Ron Johnson (R-WI).
The vote highlights a significant change in the attitudes of the two parties.
For years, Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-VT) has railed against the “unauthorized and unconstitutional” involvement of U.S Armed Forces in the Saudi-led conflict in Yemen. And just last year, he called for Congress to “take back its authority over war.”
Here was his chance to speak out against a further erosion of Congress’s war powers, but he and others declined to support the Paul amendment.
Shortly after the vote, Senator Lee tweeted his disbelief: “If your son or daughter were sent to war, would it bother you if the United States had entered that war because operation of Article 5 of the NATO treaty somehow obviated the need for Congress to declare war?” he asked.
Senator Paul also warned that the prevailing thought that the treaty obligation unquestionably commits the United States to provide military support should a NATO ally be attacked is “incorrect.”
Specifically, Paul referenced Article 11 of the NATO treaty, which states that its provisions are to be carried out according to each country’s constitutional process. In other words, the NATO treaty itself explicitly tells member nations to follow their own constitutions.
However, the other 83 senators who voted against Paul’s amendment in this case apparently declined to affirm the NATO treaty’s provisions as written.
So why did the upper chamber vote to shove-off responsibility? One word: accountability.
The modern Congress has been operating in an era of loose leadership and misdirection, because they view it more difficult to win re-election if voting records show they were the ones who sent young Americans off to war. So instead, they’d rather punt on the issue and allow the executive branch to decide without a confirmation vote by Congress.
The United States was forged around ensuring that the people are properly represented when America exercises these sober powers. But Congress has a habit of avoiding its responsibilities when hard decisions need to be made.
“Why is [voting on declaring war] important?” Paul asked rhetorically after his amendment failed. “Because in 2001, people voted to go to war and this body still thinks that that vote binds us to war with no further vote.”
In invoking the 20-year-long Afghanistan conflict, Paul was channeling the fears of many that the United States may be sleep-walking into another war that will last a generation. Only this time, it could be with a nuclear adversary in Russia.
Those fears were intensified last month amid news that the U.S. had sent controversial cluster bomb munitions to Ukraine, and that Ukraine was using U.S.-supplied drones to launch attacks on business buildings in Moscow.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said the drone attacks “would not be possible without the help provided to the Kyiv regime by the U.S. and its NATO allies” – indicating that Russia increasingly views Ukraine and NATO as a common enemy.
Amid these developments, it’s worth asking: What would a responsible Senate do?
For starters, a responsible Senate would at least debate the dangerous situation the U.S. now finds itself in – one where, for the first time since 1972, Russia is noncompliant with the nuclear nonproliferation START treaty, and has repeatedly threatened nuclear war.
A responsible Senate would also reiterate former President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO allies who have not paid their fair share of collective defense funds each year. The U.S. Treasury is largely spent, and as a result, American soldiers may have to pay for our allies’ lack of preparedness with their lives.
Lastly, a responsible Senate would confront the prospect of war with the utmost seriousness it deserves. Americans place a sacred trust in our elected representatives to put the country above all else, including their own reelection.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate is largely filled with politicians whose refusal to debate the issue at hand leaves our nation seemingly marching on a path to war without any deliberation.
W.J. Lee has served in the White House, NASA, on multiple political campaigns, and in nearly all levels of government. In his free time, he enjoys the “three R’s” – reading, running, and writing.
