The Constitution Of The United States

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

Decisions that presidents had made previously with little congressional participation. Under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Congress is granted responsibility for caring out their powers as well as all other powers in the Constitution. This gives them the constitutional right to establish certain procedural implements for war proceedings. Thus, the central purpose of the War Powers Resolutions to restrain the president from unilaterally deploying U.S. Armed Forces. Constant with this intent, legislation imposed the president to report and consult with congress. More notably, it provides congressional supervision by permitting congress to force troop

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

However, some ways the president’s power gets limited includes needing the approval of the Senate for treaties and appointing government officials, not being able to officially declare war, and not being able to make any laws as their own opinion unless they make an executive order. The Constitution gave these powers to the president so the executive branch limits what the Congress can do. For example, if the president does not gain the veto law power, the Congress would force the president to sign all laws passed by the Congress. As a result, the Congress would be similar to the British monarch when they tightened control over the 13 colonies, making laws that only benefits themselves. Article 2 section 2 lists the powers of the president, and how the president gets limited on

Since the creation of the United States of America, the power of the President has increased dramatically. Specifically, regarding foreign affairs, the power of the President has greatly increased. According to foreign policy specialist Michael Cairo, the Constitution originally gave Congress the majority of war powers. While the formal powers of Congress include the power to declare war, raise and support an army, and regulate commerce, the President was only meant to mainly be Commander in Chief and negotiate treaties in regard to foreign affairs. The President’s role of leading the armed forces may seem like it would give him the authority on all issues regarding foreign affairs, but this power was granted to the President so that he could react quickly if a national emergency occurs. Although Congress was originally given the majority of war powers, Presidents have begun to utilize unilateral authority in the realm of foreign policy. In the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, the President deployed troops without a declaration of war from Congress.

While some would argue that the framers of the Constitution did enough to limit the power of the President because of actions carried out by the leaders of the past, the more valid perspective is that these actions were made based on personal goals, and that judgements on these actions are justified based on opinions—not facts. From this, it can be concluded that the authors of The Constitution of the United States have placed enough rules, regulations, and checks to successfully limit the power of the President. In this modern American world, social and governmental society is continuously developing and evolving over time; important decisions that drive this evolution are made everyday by people of great importance. One of these important

George Washington believed the President had a role to play in foreign policy. Washington negotiated, and recognized other nations and also proposed policy for the US to follow. Franklin D. Roosevelt also expanded presidential power due to his use of the largely unconstitutional destroyer deal to help Britain stave off Nazis and a peacetime draft. Further, presidents like Reagan did not follow congress as evident with by funding the Contras even after the Boland Amendment. Likewise, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton actively bombed nations even without congressional approval because they believed they were allowed to under the Constitution. I believe Presidential dominance allows for a clear foreign policy that can be effective. However, I would acknowledge this also can lead to bad policy like the way we fight the war on terror and the war in Iraq. However, Congress can challenge

Our initial question asks why the President is the dominant force in foreign policy making within the U.S. government? A corollary is to ask whether or not the President should be the dominant force in foreign policy. This is an ongoing debate and tension between the Executive and Legislative Branches. First, we should understand that, under our current President, there is strong opinion that he should not be the dominant force for foreign policy. There are at least two opposing points of view regarding the role of the President and foreign policy. If one favors the Executive Branch, one takes the position that the Executive is better able to respond quickly and efficiently to changing conditions in world politics. If one favors the Legislative Branch, one takes the position that the Legislative is better able to consider, review, deliberate, and debate various points of view before deciding what course of action would best serve the interests of the entire nation.

All through the American history, the President's capacities have extended enormously from a constrained part doled out by the Founding Fathers to the official force and a more extensive impact over numerous territories. Being suspicious of giving the President an official force which may prompt an American dictator, the Founding Fathers permitted not very many particular president powers, in contrast with the real part of Congress, which was relied upon to be the predominant branch of the national government.

This paper discusses the War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973. Though this resolution was passed by Congress to give it more say in declaration of war and the deployment of American troops to foreign countries promising hostilities, this aim has hardly been achieved. The War Powers Act remains as one of the most contentious legal provisions in the American constitution and has been the subject of several debates and interpretations. More often than not, one finds American soldiers actually engaged in hostilities in foreign lands without the explicit or even implied support of the US Congress. This paper discusses why this is so and hypothesizes that realpolitik has significantly contributed to the practical ineffectiveness of the War Powers Act. Structurally, this paper will first proceed to present a brief history of the War Powers Act and its intended purpose. Afterwards, the linkage between realpolitik and the Act will be discussed.

The president is the foreign policy leader for the United States with an important political, military and economic role in the international arena. If there is collision between the president and congress, can congress restrain the president in foreign policy making?

The founding fathers intended for a United States government to be run significantly through the legislative branch, and to encompass the majority of domestic and foreign matters of governance. However since 1789 the forces and imperatives of national security have been shaped foreign policy matters to be the focus and responsibility of the President and the Executive branch of government. Presidential actions of key Presidents such as George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan to manipulate the interoperations of the constitution regarding Presidential power have contributed to a gradual trend of presidential authority in the international arena steadily usurping congressional prerogatives, yet, the Presidency has not become an imperial power, because of checks and balances.

Members of Congress can use procedural innovation (changing the structure and decision-making process in the executive branch) to reflect their preferences with the policies in the executive branch. By examining procedural innovation on foreign policy, Congress’s influence on foreign policy varies over the issue that there is not always the case of congressional influence on foreign policy-making.

In the 1700s when the United States had detached itself from British rule it was then seen as a plutocracy. The U.S established as a democracy; a government of the people and by the people. However, this establishment was in favor of the rich, educated, and powerful and anyone who was categorized or known as elites and it has remained in favor of these people ever since. Yes we can say we have witnessed variations and seen a semi-democratic rise in the past two centuries, but we have remained a plutocracy hidden behind the word that people use to cover its true identity, democracy. Those like the framers, the public opinion role, interest groups, and money all portray our hidden plutocracy.

The President almost always has the primary obligation for affecting foreign policy. Presidents, or their representatives, meet with leaders of other nations to try to resolve international issues peacefully. According to the Constitution, Presidents sign treaties with other nations with the "advice and approval" of the Senate. So the Senate, and to a lesser extent, the House of Representatives, also contribute in shaping foreign policy.