War Powers Resolution Essay

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

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

S. troops to Southeast Asia without Congressional approval, Congress responded by passing the War Powers Resolution in 1973. The War Powers Resolution requires that the President communicate to Congress about the committal of troops within 48 hours. Further, the statute requires the President to remove all troops after 60 days if Congress has not granted an extension.

Furthermore, Schlesinger ahs argued that the checks and balances established by the CCOnstitution and acquired powers of Congress has been put into jeopardy by the ‘imperial executive’ due to the ‘assault of the Congressional power of declaring war being overrriden. It has also been seen in President Nixon’s rule, through the impoundments of funds, allocated for particular purposes by Congress.

The War Powers Act limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The War Powers Act is also known as The War Powers Resolution. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the United States involved in hostilities. It prohibits the President from waging war beyond 60 days without the Congressional approval (MILNET: The War Powers Act of 1973). Authorization can be made in many forms such as a temporary waiver of the Act or via a Declaration of War (MILNET: The War Powers Act of 1973).

Throughout history, the actions of governments have always been debated; however, occasionally there are certain events which spark much controversy, both at the time of the event and by historians today. One of these controversial acts was the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, an act which suspended the civil liberties of Canadian citizens. In October 1970, in what became known as the October Crisis, the Front de libération du Québec, (commonly known as the FLQ) which was a French Canadian organization advocating independence from Canada, kidnapped two politicians. This initiated a series of events, one of which was the invocation of the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Many historians argue that

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.

In 1814 and 1815 President Andrew Jackson became famous for when he demolished the British Army in the war of Battle of New Orleans. What most people do not know is that Jackson suspended the court order of habeas corpus and the declaration of war. Well habeas corpus is a court order requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. So Jackson suspended this law so that he could bring in people he needed to win the war with New Orleans, which brings us to the declaration of war. Declaration of war is a formal act which one state goes to war against another. The declaration is a speech acting by an authorized party of a national government, to create a state of war between two states. Now you are probably wondering

In the admittedly short life time of the Presidential branch its occupants have taken massive strides in empowering and strengthening their office. At times a case could be made that the executive has aspired to too much; threating essential American political values, such is the case of President Franklin Roosevelt who secured a third term of office ignoring precedent and tradition. However, evidence would suggest that for any significant step a president takes towards increasing their power; often results in an equal and opposite reaction. That is not to say that our presidents are weak, in actuality we see that our presidents have significantly increased their power to wage war

became concerned with the “abuse” of this power, particularly those executed by former Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon (288). This concern emerged during the Vietnam and Korean wars when the United States was in great conflict with the nations without a formal Declaration of War by Congress. In an effort to limit the President’s power, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution which established guidelines for the executive during times of conflict. The Resolution requires the President to alert Congress of his intentions to commit forces. However, the President must withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress declares war, grants special authorization, extends the 60 day period, or is unable to physically meet as a result of an armed attack against the United States (288). The President is provided the power to extend the 60 day period if he determines that doing so is necessary for the safety and

The War Powers Act was explicitly meant to limit presidential powers during war time, but it has failed to do so. The ninety day limit has never been followed and while 99 reports have been submitted to Congress because of the Resolution, the reports are simply to inform, rather than consult with Congress, after a planned action is already under way. During the presidential reign of Gerald Ford, the United States was involved with six military crises: the rescue of U.S. citizens and refugees in Vietnam after the war, the rescue of the Mayaguez, and two evacuation operations in Lebanon. The War Powers Act was not applied in any of these situations, and it’s relevancy in military

The phrase, “We the people”, holds a lot of meaning to American citizens. As the first three words of the United States Constitution, it signifies a core value intended to act as a unifying factor in America’s democratic society: popular sovereignty. This is the idea of a majority rules, or to put more simply, the one with the most votes wins. The U.S. system of government relies upon the fact that the American people are capable of coming together to make informed decisions about matters that will ultimately better the lives of everyone. Despite this, however, there are certain instances in which a minority group will impose on or have more influence than the majority group. This phenomenon occurs all the time in politics, as politicians tend to regard the predilections of small groups of citizens as opposed to the general populace.

As the commander in chief, the president plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. The president possesses the power to appoint senior cabinet members, commit troops and conduct high level talks with foreign governments. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to ratify treaties, confirm the president’s appointees and approve budgetary measures. And while the president has the ability to commit troops, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Despite criticisms of the American policy making process describing it as inefficient and slow moving, the main purpose and thus benefit of the constitutional separation of power is the framework of checks and balances that safeguard against monopolization of foreign policy decision making.

On some issues, the public will prevail because elected officials or the leaders of companies will want to appease them. In other cases, even if the majority feels strongly about an issue, they would choose to side with either their personal beliefs or their party’s beliefs. For example, even if the majority of Americans agree with gay marriage, it is likely that an elected official who doesn’t believe in gay marriage would vote on their own behalf. We often differentiate the messages we receive from our government and then companies, but they both employ the same strategies to get their citizen’s opinion to an expression regardless if that is casting a ballot or swiping a credit