Unlike Fisher, John Yoo Believes That The Intention Of

Based on the way that the President’s office was created, the makeup of the Congress can present a challenge or an

Though many were opposed to military force, it was for many diferent reasons. Some thought that military force was not needed because the threats imposed by President Bush was in fact acknowledged by the Iraquian troops because they no longer were advancing in territory and no other territory was currently in danger of being invaded, and it would only be a matter of time before they withdrew thier troops. David Chandler in a letter to the la times wrote "The official reasons given by the bush adminastration for going to war in the Persian Gulf are not adequate to explain our agressive

“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).

Moe and Howell point out that the Founders of the Constitution had agreed on an incomplete contract that does not explicitly state what decisions should be made under all current and future contingencies, but builds a governing structure consisting of the president, Congress, and the courts. It also shares powers among them, specifies procedures for public decision-making, and offers a framework of rules that allows leaders to make public decisions as well as handle any contingencies that may come up. The authors then explain that the three branches would fight with each other

According to the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Nowhere in the First Amendment does it state that in times of war, the government can change the laws that have been made to protect the people of the United States. Although some thought President Wilson’s actions were just, he did not abide by the rules of the First Amendment, and because of that, he went too far in limiting people’s civil liberties during World War

Congress was the initial choice of most of the framers, but then they realized they first dilemma; by having congress elect the president, he would be loyal only to congress and not the people. The second and most logically thought was to have the people elect the president. However,

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

This executive order, issued as a military necessity, enlarged the purpose of the war beyond simply saving the Union to ending slavery. During this time president Lincoln was representing The Republicans. While slavery had been a major issue that led to the war, Lincoln's only mission

The Framers of the constitution wanted to limit the power of the president because of their prior experiences with king george. Limiting the power that the president has, was

During wartime periods of our history, the President has taken actions that seem to be outside the powers extended the office in the Constitution when it comes to civil liberties. Does the President have the power to continue to

The framers of the Constitution did many things to limit the power of the president such as creating a system of checks and balances, establishing a process of impeachment, and requiring congressional approval for many presidential decisions; however some believe the president was given too much power by the framers by allowing executive orders and court packing. Through trying to limit the power of the president, the framers also set requirements to become president. These include being least 35 years old, living in the U.S. for consecutive 14 years, and natural born citizen of the United States of America. The framers of the Constitution did enough to limit the power of the President. This was done by creating a process for impeachment,

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

The framers of the Constitution recognized that if one person or a group of individuals gets all the powers, tyranny was inevitable and to prevent this it became evident that a separation of powers must be established. The framers acknowledged that it was possible to have a tyranny in a democracy as stated in Federalist Paper #47 “The accumulation of all powers…in the same hands…, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective… is the very definition of tyranny.” Thus, it was decided

During the Writing of the United States Constitution, the Framers wanted a new government, but NOT a king. They split up the Government into three branches, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. The Executive branch is run by the president. The Framers wanted the president to have power, but not too much power where he converts into a king. The Frames decided to allow him to give executive orders over laws.

One must examine the fine points of each argument that the administration had proposed for the immediacy of war in order to best refute them. The first and often most repeated argument that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States is that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. I am willing to concede that the Iraqi military possessed both chemical and biological agents. Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of them that were never accounted for after the first Gulf War. He has even used them on several occasions on Kurdish minorities in Northern Iraq. However, no proof was ever offered that he possessed nuclear weapons or the means to develop them in the near future.