War Powers Resolution

The American “way of war” can be seen politically through the evolution of military policy as political perspectives changed. Post-World War II reveals primary and consistent policies that lead American military policymakers to avoid major international conflict. Coined the Cold War, Americans began waging war

Even with the approval of congress towards the Tonkin Gulf incident showed a “misuse of power” (Rotter, 77). When Dante B. Fascell said “The president needed authority. Who cared about the facts of the so-called incident that would trigger this authority? So the resolution was just hammered right on through by everyone” (Young, 120); this recollection makes it appear as through the Tonkin Gulf incident decision was not well-informed. The resolution was the issue of Johnson’s authority and the potential that offensive measures in South Vietnam could lead to a third world war (Young, 121). Another example that Americanization was unwise and not well-informed was Johnson ignoring the George Ball about better solutions to help America leave the war. Once again it is the issue with Johnson’s authority, he constantly ignores other possibilities of leaving Vietnam. At the end the Johnson administration would choose three tactics: bombing the North, intensify the war in the South using U.S. troops, and concentration on pacification of the

In 1960’s America was becoming divided at home and struggling to understand the America’s intervention in foreign nations especially South Vietnam. When Nixon took office he wanted to quiet the protests, he wanted to get America out of Vietnam and focus on the falling economy at home. Thus Nixon purposed a period of relaxation with the Soviet Union. “ Nixon and Kissinger hoped that such a relationship, which they deemed détente would lessen the threat of nuclear war, encourage the Soviets to pressure North Vietnam into a peace settlement.” (Gillon p. 1114) “ President Nixon and Henry Kissinger wanted to abandon the costly pursuit of weapons superiority and instead focus on peaceful economic competition.” (Gillon p.1114)

Pre-WW1 to Aftermath: Staunch Isolationism, A Bloody War, The League of Nations, Woodrow Wilson’s Dream Falls Apart.

George C. Herring had addressed one of the more major impact of the war on our foreign policy in “America and Vietnam: the Unending War,” and had stated that “... Success in the Gulf war no doubt raised the nation's confidence in its foreign policy leadership and it's military institutions…” (Document 9). This suggest that the United States foreign policy had at one point gotten somewhat stronger due to the effects of the war, however, Herring goes on to state that it had a negative effect on the nations inhibitions abroad. The U.S foreign policy also had changed because of the war when The United States ended the military draft and switched to an all-volunteer army, as well as when Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which had set limits on presidential ability to send troops into combat without the consent from congress. This choice had showed the desire for the United States to not be involved in another war like the Vietnam war.

Vietnam War DBQ Rough Draft The United States became involved in Vietnam affairs after the end of World War II, during the Cold War. The French were trying to colonize Indochina, which included Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. America wanted to have the French as allies against the Soviet union, so they proceeded to aid them in their colonization. Vietnam pressed for independence, and war broke out. The U.S. involvement in the war remains controversial.

result, the U.S. interfered and their interference was backed up by reasons and resulted in many

In holding that the president’s action was constitutional, the Court implicitly gave its approval that the president’s action could satisfy the compelling government interest burden. Justice William Rehnquist, who was not yet on the Court, would later weigh in on this case when he wrote, “An entirely separate and important philosophical question is whether occasional presidential excesses and judicial restraint in wartime are desirable or undesirable. In one sense, this question is very largely academic. There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently from Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt, or that future Justices of the Supreme Court will decide questions differently than their predecessors” (Rehnquist). His point makes clear the practical implications of this case, which may be used to justify the view that the court has provided the president with a “constitutional dictatorship,” especially in times of war. The Court found a way to provide the president with almost absolute power, and that set a dangerous precedent for the future, just as Rehnquist points out.

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.

Yoo argues that the text of the Constitution gives the executive branch broad authoritative power to make war in order to defend the nation (74). Yoo focuses on the differentiation between the phrases “declare war” and “make war” and asserts that the Founding Fathers purposefully did not give Congress sole power to “make war” as they realized that the president was most suited to protect the nation from a sudden attack. He argues that when it comes to a military emergency, the founders knew that authority should rest in one set of hands because one person can make decisions with greater speed and organization than many. He also states that an official declaration of war has more to do with technicalities of international law than with actual military operations, which is why this particular power was designated to Congress. According to Yoo, the founders purposely left the process for making war vague in the Constitution in order to lend necessary flexibility to the complex process of defending the country.

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

Congress and the president use their powers to check and balance each other. One power of Congress is the ability to declare war. However, Congress generally gives the president control during war time. Because of this, the president is able to acquire more power over the war while Congress can do little if they have already given their approval. After the Vietnam War, in which Presidents Johnson and Nixon continued to wage despite a divided Congress[i]; they decided that the Constitution did not warrant the president to have the power to declare war, so they passed the War

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

Unilateral versus multilateral in the Reagan Era through today. If the U.S. engaged in the unilateral military action it wouldn't be right because, it would be taking rights from other countries to defend themselves. Multiple reasons unilateral and multilateral have different debates, such as the rights from countries from the unilateral actions and the multilateral actions serves to bind the great power and the multilateral may be the most useful says https://en.wikipedia,org/wiki/multilateralism also powerful states buy into multilateral agreements.

This span of time allows for the analysis of how a president changed throughout his presidency in terms of their decision making. Such an understanding is relevant because it can determine the strengths and weaknesses of a person in power that can either be exploited by political opponents or improved upon by future commander-in-chiefs to determine the overall effectiveness of the president. This topic was of interest because an analysis of the both of the events can present the way in which John F. Kennedy changed in relation to his foreign policy between 1961 to 1962.