resolution that gave President Johnson the authority to use “all necessary force, including the use of the armed forces” in Vietnam. (5) The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, William Fullbright was a major proponent of the resolution, and he conceded that the resolution could be used as an authorization for the country to go to war, but he was not concerned because all he had heard indicated that Johnson did not intend to use it in such a manner.(6) One of the dissenters, Democrat Wayne Morse of Oregon, accurately predicted that Johnson would use the resolution as a “functional declaration of war.”(7) Ironically, Morse’s ignored prediction rang true and many members of Congress regretted voting for a resolution that effectively brought the United States to war.The Gulf of Tonkin affair brought to attention the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches in the area of foreign affairs. The Congress felt their constitutional power to declare war was weakened by presidents’ ability to send troops wherever he so chooses without its’ consent, as was done even before the Gulf of Tonkin affair. Furthermore, they argue that one individual is not equipped to make such far-ranging decisions such as sending a war. As historian Joseph C. Goulden puts it, “The Senate claims that there is no monopoly on foreign policy expertise, and derides those who claim to possess it.”(8) Seen as a body of elites, the Senate feels it should weigh in on such pressing issues as going to war.The Constitution prioritizes the passage of a declaration of war by requiring a two-third’s majority of both houses, therefore President Johnson’s usage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to authorize prolonged United States military involvement in Vietnam is condemned by senators and congressmen alike. Congress argues that the passage of a resolution that was sol...
