Presidential Powers and the Constitution

“When war is thrust upon the nation, the President had not only the authority but the responsibility to ‘resist force by force.’” –U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Prize Cases, 1862 (67 U.S. 6335).

In the article, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory,” Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, two political science instructors from Stanford University, investigate a source of presidential power, which is the president’s capability to act individually and make his own law, that has been unacknowledged yet essential to presidential leadership that it defines how the modern presidency is distinctively modern. The authors’ purpose in the article is to outline a theory of this feature of presidential power by arguing that the president’s powers of unilateral action, which is developed from the ambiguity of the contract, are strengths in American politics since they are not mentioned in the constitution. They also claim that presidents push the ambiguity of the contract to make their powers grow and that Congress and the courts would not be able to stop them (Moe and Howell, 1999, p. 1-3).

When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia, they came together with one common purpose in mind. They needed to form a fair and solid system of government that would stand the test of time; one that was both fair for the people and would not involve a monarchy. Each of these men had their own ideas on what would constitute this system, however, so many compromises had to be made. Together, the men gathered in Philadelphia created a federal system of government and drafted a constitution outlining this government. They took care in developing three branches of federal government with a system of checks and balances so that no one branch would gain too much power, thus avoiding any

Many times in history the Supreme Court has been faced with deciding how to treat civil liberties during war time. This raises the question, what restrictions if any should the court allow during wartime. The court is faced with making the decision on civil liberties during wartime for security reasons, and to protect the rights of the individual. While some may say that the no exception stance may put our national security at risk during war time, No exception is the only stance that is constitutionally acceptable as proven through the analysis of the different stances by examining related cases, text, and the constitution.

In 2009, Obama signed an executive order that signalled the closing of Guantanamo Bay. However, Congress blocked bills that would have given the funds necessary to close the detention centre. As a result, Guantanamo Bay is still open today. This example demonstrates that presidents need congress on their side in order for congress to not undermine their executive orders. While the president may have power of executive orders constitutionally speaking, he needs Congress to not undermine it. The House controls the purse and executive orders often require money. This evidence supports the assertion that the US presidency is “more imperiled than imperial” because although he has the legal power, the president needs the political power for his executive orders to not be undermined. In the UK, the PM cannot make laws alone but can vote on them.

The Constitution is supposed to divide war powers between the president and Congress, but in today’s society that has not always been the case. We live in a country with competing views, but our Constitution was created through disagreement. While the Constitution is a source of cherished and unifying political ideas, it can provoke some of the most intense quarrels because of its principles and protections. It is also debated and applied to present circumstances daily. To get back to the presidential power argument, President Barack Obama sent United States military into combat without the consent from Congress. “As a presidential candidate in 2007, Senator Obama stated, “The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation” (Yoo). President Barack Obama announced four years later, that he was acting on his constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations as the commander in chief/chief executive by the intervention with Libya. Throughout our history, neither presidents nor Congress have carried out the beliefs that the constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S can allow for the military to act. “We have forced abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: The War of 1812, the

During the Worcester v. Georgia case the Judicial branch declared the extension of “Georgia's extension of State law over them to be unconstitutional” However the state of Georgia did not follow the ruling. When the Chief Justice turned to Andrew Jackson he refused to enforce the law. By not enforcing this law, “Jackson violated his presidential oath to uphold the laws of the land.” Overall Jackson abused his power by not doing what he is supposed to do, instead doing what he wants to

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

During America's most consequential wars, the United States government has restricted civil liberties of the American people despite the nation’s strong rooted foundation for preserving every citizen’s rights. When danger is an ever present factor for the nation due to war or conflict restrictions are often placed on some of the most basic freedoms and liberties. Perfect balancing of these restrictions is vital to the countries wellbeing. One of the most well-known examples of this type of restraint is Abraham Lincoln’s precedent of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus and issuing martial law. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the rights of the people that are guaranteed to them under the Constitution. While out of context it wouldn’t

The United States, fighting to not be under England’s rule, feared falling back into a monarchy. The governmental power in America is separated into three different branches or "departments" of government, modeled after Greek political ideas. The government was divided in this way to prevent any one entity from containing all the power. Thusly, keeping any form of a monarchy from coming into power. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (201-202).

Because Abraham Lincoln’s presidency took place during a national crisis, the Lincoln administration not only marks a critical turning point in the political history of slavery but raises questions about the role and responsibility of the executive power during war time. As Nelson and Milkis note, Lincoln ran his administration parallels to that of a forceful leader. As commander in chief, for instance, Lincoln expanded the power granted to the president during war time. Going beyond the scope of presidential power, Lincoln suspended the the writ of habeas corpus in the northern and border states. This suspension is significant in that the action greatly empowered governmental officials, for they could make arrest in an absence of a warrant

The Framers of the US Constitution wanted to prevent the concentration of power into the hands of one individual, or even one group of individuals, within the national government. Thus, they reduced all governmental functions to essentially three:legislative, executive, and judicial. Because they believed that the very root of tyranny was to allow these three essential governmental functions to be exercised by one person or group.1 Consequently, they deliberately set out to devide the three functions into three separate and distinct institutions under the principle of separaton of powers, so as to gform a more perfect Union h.

After the Prize cases of 1863, the Executive exercised it’s power to act war-like in situations that looked like war in various regions throughout the globe. Congress however, soon

The framers were well aware of centralized authority, which they found to be arbitrary and unjust. This ideology led to tyranny. They needed to create the government system to avoid it. Therefore, the governmental functions were divided into different branches, this principle was heavily influenced by the theories of philosophers John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu (Hall & Feldmeier, 2012).

Imagine if the entire American government system was operated entire by the president. Every decision, law, and court ruling determined by only one person. There is no room for debate or questioning, ultimately leading to the abuse of power and authority. While this may seem completely absurd, many believe that this is not very far away from actual truth. Due to the uneven use of checks and balances among the three branches of government, it has resulted in the executive branch of the American government gaining too much power, therefore leaving the original intent of the constitution to be changed and unenforced.