An Analysis of the War Powers Act Essay

The farmers of our Constitution recognized the need for separate powers as well as checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This in turn helps to "provide for the common defense". Separation of powers prevents one branch from becoming excessively dominant over the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.: In order to accede to the preamble and adhere in its goals, the Constitution ensures this is by clearly stating the

On the other hand, by taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama's administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency — an executive who increasingly acts independently of Congress at home and abroad. Obtaining a U.N. Security Council resolution has legitimated U.S. bombing raids under international law. But the U.N. Charter is not a substitute for the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress, not the president, the power "to declare war."

- The War Measures Act was first passed in 1914; this was a response to Canada’s involvement in WWI. This act has only been invoked 3 times all throughout Canada’s history. This act gave large power to the Canadian government or revolt.

Congress passed the War Powers Act that acknowledges the presidential right to take limited military action before receiving congressional approval, but requires him to file a formal report with Congress within forty-eight hours of initiating hostilities. The use of military action is limited to sixty days without congressional approval. An additional thirty days can be granted if it is necessary to withdraw the troops.

As the decided cases make clear, focusing mainly on mere historical acquiescence by Congress when examining the President 's exercise of a particular power does not by itself prove that Congress lacks the authority to limit the exercise of that power when it gathers the courage and wisdom to do so. Justice Jackson 's Steel Seizure concurrence carried the warning that "only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers” and that warning presupposes what is argued here: that Congress, if it so chooses, can regain power lost to the executive branch through its own course of action. If the Congress does not act when conditions demand action, then the President will exercise power because power must be exercised. But the fact that the President exercises a power when Congress does not, does not render that power as "inherent" in the executive or even make it remotely valid. At best, the power is "inherent" in the overall government of the United States of America. Therefore, the argument that Presidents have "always" controlled troops without congressional interference proves no more than perhaps its own premise: that Presidents have always done this. In particular, that historical conclusion makes no statement at all about congressional authority to alter that long-standing state of affairs. Failure to see this crucial distinction accounts for occasional citation to the line of cases beginning with United States v. Midwest Oil Co., as authority for the

Comprehending the underlying authority for the President of the United States to authorize the international use of military operations in order to respond to an attack or as a counter-terrorism strategy, may be difficult to fathom for those who are not familiar with practices and philosophies associated in this realm. Conducting military operations against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, detaining suspected terrorists, both indefinitely domestically and abroad, and the use of unmanned drones to disrupt and destroy suspected terrorists and those aiding them in areas such as Pakistan fall under the umbrella of what the US has been able to accomplish in our last 12 years during the Global War on Terror.

He emphasized that energy and unilateral action in the executive are important for a well functioning system. Writing in Federalist No. 70, Hamilton describes that “energy” was written for the expansion of presidential power to uphold "the public happiness". Theodore Roosevelt was the first chief executive to embrace the Hamiltonian position, by transitioning modern presidency to a strong, effective executive. The youthful Roosevelt pursued executive powers to new limits, pushing popular reform policies not supported by Congress. He expedited the Panama Canal construction process, regulating businesses, and broke up trusts that had gained too much market share. Many conservatives worried about Roosevelt overextending his powers, but he claimed that "the executive power was limited only by specific restrictions appearing in the Constitution”. Modern presidents have embraced Theodore Roosevelt’s view, emphasizing more extensive visions of the president’s ability to circumvent congressional

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

The United States emerged from its war for independence economically and politically ravaged. Times were tough for many citizens, and it was up to the authors of the Constitution to establish a foundation upon which the nation could properly prosper. The tough times called for extensive measures, and few measures were as extensive as giving the president the power to do anything the president desired. This power enabled the president to do any acts the president deemed necessary for stability. However, the possible consequences were recognized by officials and the people. As such, limitations were introduced that greatly restricted the power of executive

The War Powers Act works within the constitutional authority of Congress. The executive branch cannot become a power that can declare war by itself, it needs Congress to do it. Many people opposed the Vietman War as well as many wars but the President at the time agreed that the invasion needed to occur. Protests came up in the United States from people that thought the war was not a positive thing. War is not always one-sided, congress needs to take part in having a say, and it is totally entitled to do so as the constitution permits it. The executive branch of government can’t solely declare war, it is not how it works. There is a certain process as it says it the constitution and it cannot be changed unless it is amended. War is a difficult

The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed to limit the power of the president when dealing with the army. President Nixon tried to veto this act but since both the House and the Senate agreed with this resolution it was overruled by Congress.The resolution stated that before the president made a decision to use armed forces, they had to consult with Congress for their approval. If Congress approved they only gave the president 60 days till they had to send the troops back home, unless Congress agrees to give them more days.

Jacob Luangrath Professor Xiao POLS 301 November 10, 2017 President Versus Congress in Foreign Policy In the year 1787, the Constitution of the United States was written by James Madison with significant contributions from the United States founding fathers -also known as the framers of the United States Constitution - and signed on September 17, 1787. After the framers of the United States Constitution divided the power of the government amongst three different branches, there has always been a tug-of-war between the legislative branch, executive branch, and the judicial branch when coming to a consensus because of the well planned out system of checks and balances. In creating the system of checks and balances, it also created an invitation

The extent rights and freedoms should be sacrificed in favor of security is to a extent where it is justifiable, individuals affected by it and not found guilty should also receive an apology or compensation for their violation of rights and freedoms.

These Congressional powers are further defined latter in section 8 to define Congress’s roles as having the power to declare war and to raise and support the Armies and Navies of the United States. Through (Article II, section 2) it is understood that the President is the Commander and Chief of those Armed forces, tasked with repelling attacks against the United States (U.S. Constitution). This division of powers was affective, because each conflict The United States entered into was accompanied by a declaration of war. Controversy began to arise when the President sent forces into conflicts abroad without a declaration of war, or without the approval of congress.

Detail #1: Presidential powers under Article ii of the U.S. constitution allows the use of force against an imminent threat without congressional law.