Why Should The Limit On The President Stay The Same?

Satisfactory Essays
I feel that the limits on the president should stay the same. The reason I feel this way is because every president is different so, the government has to keep each presidents power balanced with the rest of the government. If the government gives the president more freedom to respond to security threats, this may result in more wars. However, it may also help take quick action if needed without having to go through Congress. An example of a president having too much freedom is when president Nixon allowed conflict during the Korean and Vietnam wars without a declaration of war. If the government is more strict on the presidents authority, this may weaken us as a nation because the president would not be able to make quick action. With the laws such as The War Powers Act of 1973, that “requires the President to notify Congress within 48…show more content…
Weapons of mass destruction is “a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere” (Weapons of Mass Destruction). The main reason I believe that The War Powers Act of 1973 should stay the way that it is, is because if the president has suspicion of weapons of mass destruction then they can act quickly on getting into the country to try and find and control the situation. Then if Congress figures out there is no weapons or need to be invading a country, the troops will get out. An example of a president starting a war because of suspicion of weapons of mass destruction is when president Bush declared war on Iraq. I think that the founding fathers would would agree with The War Powers Act of 1973 because, they did not want a president who had too much power or seemed like a
Get Access