President Bush is beginning this week his consultations with the Congress over the problem of Iraq. He has invited Congressional leaders over to the White House for a meeting today. It is to Congress that the Founders delegated the power to declare war, and, as was pointed out in the adjacent columns yesterday, a good deal of discussion took place at the founding of America as to whether Congress was the right spot. The founders feared unchecked executive power. They delegated to the First Branch not only the war-declaring power but also war-funding powers, and they restricted the latter sharply.

But when Mr. Bush sits down with the legislature, it wouldn’t be illogical for him to address the problem in the context of the authority that the Congress has already granted the president — twice. The first time Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq — on January 12, 1991 — was during the Gulf War. That broad mandate has not expired. Captioned the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution,” the declaration read in part:

Whereas the Government of Iraq without provocation invaded and occupied the territory of Kuwait on August 2, 1990; and … Whereas, Iraq’s conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to world peace; and … Whereas, in the absence of full compliance by Iraq with its resolutions, the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 678 has authorized member states of the United Nations to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area … The President is authorized … to use the United States Armed Forces …

These clauses clearly give the President authority to attack Saddam preemptively, based on the tyrant’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, as well as to enforce United Nations resolutions regarding the no-fly zone and weapons inspections. As it happens, however, a decade later Congress also authorized military action in Iraq if Mr. Bush deems it implicated in the war that erupted on September 11. The Use of Force Resolution, adopted September 14, reads in part (we added but the emphasis): [T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

By our lights and by those of any advocate of the plain language school of law, this gives the president the authority to act against Iraq if he comes to the conclusion that Iraq was involved, even tangentially, before or after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We recognize that a number of our most credible commentators, such as The Wall Street Journal, have argued that the president would be well advised to give Congress its say, if only for political reasons. But playing politics with war can backfire. The battle has long since been joined, and if Mr. Bush wants to ask anything of Congress, it would be whether it wishes to rescind the authority it has already given to him. It would be something to see the Congress try to explain such an act to the voters.