What Are The Differences Between President And Congress

Oliver Ellsworth, an important American lawyer and politician that lived during the first American Independence day, states his opinion on a new American Congress, “The powers of congress must be defined, but their means must be adequate to the purposes of their constitution. It is possible there may be abuses and misapplications; still, it is better to hazard something than to hazard at all”. In the original United States Constitution, the Framers wanted to make three different and equal branches of government, but today that is not the case. In present day government, Congress is more powerful than the President. The Legislative Branch, or Congress, is the second branch of the United States Federal Government. Congress is made up of two houses called the Senate and the House of Representatives. The main purpose of

“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 this essay, I will be writing about how the power relationship between the United States Congress and the presidency has changed during the past two hundred years. I will be talking about how the executive branch is more powerful than the legislative branch and how the changing relationship between Congress and the president affected American democracy in a good way.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution assigns Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief

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.

My thoughts about the power between Congress and The Presidency I think it’s all about balance. We look to Congress and The Supreme Court to lead our government and The President to be the head of our country to make hard decisions that sometimes lead our country into war. With that said neither one at the same time should have too much power we don’t want a dictatorship and our constitution was made to give the President the freedom to be great leaders. It's all about balance and doing what’s best for our country with both Congress and The

The necessary and proper clause in the Constitution is a point of contention in the United States. Congress is given many implied powers in Article I Section 8 Clause 18, but this clause has been misinterpreted and the powers over-used.

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

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers and limits the president’s power as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Only the president has the power to send or withdrawal troops when he sees necessary. Congress does not have the executive authority to control the United States Armed Forces. By passing the War Powers Act, Congress is attempting to take on the role of the Commander-in-Chief by dictating the president’s actions, and interfering with his official duties.

The act stated that in time of war, the President of the United States has the right to take action against any person who was a citizen of the country the United States was at war with. The President was given the power to act against the citizens of that country who were at war with the United States, as long as the person was a male, not a citizen of the United States, and at least fourteen years old.

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

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

All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime is a book by William H. Rehnquist, former Chief Justice of the United States of America. In his book, Justice Rehnquist presents the history of civil liberties during wartime in the United States during three wars: the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. This book takes us on an in depth journey of the United States of America’s government activities. Justice Rehnquist follows the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. As former Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist is able to give readers an understanding to the thought process of government officials though his own commentary. A historical approach is taken as the author analyzes the Supreme Court’s

So what import does Yakus have today? It is clear that the Supreme Court’s sanction of bifurcated review was motivated in significant part by the extreme circumstances of the case. Moreover, there are good reasons to doubt whether other national interests can serve the same justifying function as war. Thus, there is a powerful argument that Yakus’s holding is tightly linked to its facts, and that it is not applicable absent comparable circumstances. But even if the concept of bifurcated review survives—and, indeed, note that Yakus is still good law, despite the Court’s expressed skepticism—we should still be cautious to conclude that an alternate proceeding is “adequate.” As Yakus and subsequent cases made clear, there is a relationship between