Under the US Constitution, can Congress require the President to use military force?
<p>Suppose that a new Congress gets elected, and they unanimously really, <em>really</em> <em><strong>really</strong></em> hate the government of country X, so much so that they want the US military to basically destroy it. So the government passes a law that not only declares, but also bestows upon the President a legal obligation to see that country X's government is completely upended. It leaves no room for the President to cease hostilities for more than, say, 30 days every 3 years, except as provided for by treaty.</p>
<p>Would this be legal?</p>

<p>The Constitution says &quot;The President shall be Commander in Chief of the
Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual Service of the United States&quot;.
As supreme military commander, the president alone gets to say whether or not to commit troops for such an expedition. Congress does have the power to control the purse. It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that Congress cannot command the president.</p>

<p>If the President does not properly conduct his duties as President, he is subject to impeachment.</p>
<p>In such an exceptional circumstance, the two houses may consider that the Presidents failure to act constitutes treason, and that he/she should be impeached.</p>
<p>There is certainly international precedent for that: King Charles 1 of England was convicted and executed for treason. He asserted that Parliament had no jurisdiction: Parliament disagreed.</p>
<p>Of course, if he/she won't co-operate, perhaps congress and the senate won't co-operate with him/her. Maybe re-enact the salary and pension and expenses and security. Maybe the President will resign?</p>

united-states constitutional-law