Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 — From The Spanish American War To World War I And Total War

| next

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . . .

The United States declared war against Spain in April 1898 following a Cuban insurrection against Spanish rule and the sinking of the USS Maine in the harbor outside Havana.. ") Similar to the declarations of war in the War of 1812. ") and the Mexican War,. ") Congress’s declaration of war in the Spanish American War authorized the President to “use the entire land and naval forces of the United States” to prosecute the war effort.. ") Like those prior declared wars, and in contrast to the 20th century conflicts that would follow, the Spanish American War did not require nation-wide mobilization of personnel and economic resources and was fought with U.S. volunteer and militia forces rather than through broad national conscription., . ")

The Spanish American War did not give rise to Supreme Court decisions addressing the meaning of the Declare War Clause, but it did lead to other constitutional questions, such as how the Constitution would apply to territories that the United States acquired from Spain at the close of the war, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Other elements of the war and its aftermath, such as the U.S. acquisition of a long-term land lease at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and interrogation techniques in American-annexed Philippines, would set the stage for later Supreme Court cases in the post-September 11, 2001 era., >https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44137. United States’ detention operations at Guantanamo Bay after the attacks of September 11, 2001 led to several constitutional questions concerning the President’s detention authority, which were addressed by the Supreme Court. See . Legal issues concerning detainee interrogation methods in the Philippines, including a method called “water cure,” also arose after the Spanish-American War. See S. Doc. No. 57-213, at 18–29 (1903). ")

In World War I, Congress made two declarations of war: first against Germany in April 1917 and then against Austria-Hungary in December 1917. In these declarations, Congress pledged “all resources of the country” necessary to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion. This marked an expansion beyond earlier war declarations,; Act of April 25, 1898, Pub. L. No. 55-69, 30 Stat. 364 (Spanish-American War). See also Act of May 13, 1846, 9 Stat. 9 (Mexican War) ( “The President be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ the militia, naval, and military forces of the United States, and to call for and accept the services of any number of volunteers.” ). ") which authorized the President to use land, naval, and military forces, but did not reference other domestic resources. Consistent with the new language, the First World War engaged far more of the nation’s resources and led to Supreme Court decisions challenging elements of the U.S. war effort.

In line with the view that the United States must marshal nationwide resources to achieve victory, Congress passed a set of economic mobilization statutes that gave the President the authority to take control of private property for public use during the World War I.; Christopher A. Casey and Jennifer K. Elsea, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R45618, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use 2–3 (Jan. 30, 2024), >https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/r/r45618. ") Exercising statutory delegations, the Wilson Administration assumed control of many elements of the domestic economy, including privately owned transportation networks. ") and communications systems (permitting the President “to take possession and assume control of any telegraph, telephone, marine cable, or radio system or systems” ). See also Matthew C. Waxman, The Power to Wage War Successfully, 117 Colum. L. Rev. 613, 651 & n.214 (2017) (discussing World War I economic mobilization statutes); Edward S. Corwin, Total War and the Constitution 39 (1947) (outlining World War I era congressional delegations of power). ") inside the United States.; N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. North Dakota ex rel. Langer, 250 U.S. 135, 149–52 (1919). ") In response to legal challenges to the President’s seizure of railroads and telephone lines, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statutory delegations, emphasizing the “completeness” of Congress’s war powers.">Dakota Cent. Tel. Co., 250 U.S. at 183 ( “[T]he completeness of the war power under which the authority was exerted and by which completeness its exercise is to be tested suffices, we think, to dispose of the many other contentions urged as to the want of power in Congress to confer upon the President the authority which it gave him.” ); N. Pac. Ry. Co., 250 U.S. at 149 ( “The complete and undivided character of the war power of the United States is not disputable.” ). ") The Supreme Court also upheld other wartime economic authorizations, including a statutory delegation to the President to regulate sale of enemy properties, (interpreting the Trading with the Enemy Act). For additional background on the Trading with the Enemy Act, see CRS Report R45618, supra note 11, at 2–6. ") war-related rent control requirements in the District of Columbia,. ") and a wartime prohibition on trafficking in liquor, which the Court described as a “an appropriate means of increasing our war efficiency.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/from-the-spanish-american-war-to-world-war-i-and-total-war#fn18art1 " Hamilton v. Ky. Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. …