The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, wrote a letter to Senator Rand Paul confirming that the President could kill a United States citizen on United States soil. This controversy was started by a simple question asked by Senator Rand Paul in a letter to the Justice Department. Senator Paul asked the Justice Department if the President believed he had authority to kill an American citizen within the United States. Instead of the Justice Department, the Attorney General responded with a hypothetical situation, which simply meant, yes, the President has the authority under the Constitution to kill an American citizen within the Untied States. The checks and balances on a hypothetical situation must be reviewed by the judicial branch or this hypothetical jargon may give the President more powers than the original intent of the Constitution. The founders wanted the President to be ready for any invasion or insurrection and that is why the President is Commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The founders were every reluctant to allow the President to decide whether his o...
You little tyrant king george off with your head.Since the Americans had a bad experience with one person having too much power they made a constitution that guarded against tyranny by, dividing power, making the branches able to check or limit each other, and dividing power between big and little states.
Our Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton and James Madison had faith in the ethics of the people to establish a representative government. Alexander Hamilton author of many of the Federalist papers before his death in 1804, he was firm believer in the Constitution grew frustrated; therefore, in Federalist paper One; he would provide answers to any objection to the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed that the Constitution wasn’t written to limit the people. He makes an argument in Federalist paper Eight, concerning a standing army, which was not provided against in the new Constitution; he concludes that it may exist under it. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. The states support its number of discipline troops. He implied
The farmers of our Constitution recognized the need for separate powers as well as checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This in turn helps to "provide for the common defense". Separation of powers prevents one branch from becoming excessively dominant over the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.: In order to accede to the preamble and adhere in its goals, the Constitution ensures this is by clearly stating the authority of the Congress in Article I Section 8 and the authority of the President in Article II Section 2. These fixed powers in the Constitution clearly state that one cannot act without permission or authorization of another. It is designed to that one cannot take action without consent of the other branch. This is prevalent in Article I Section 7 that states the process of how a law is passed. The fact that there are clear steps to the initiation of a law states the importance of separation of powers so that a single dominant branch does not arise.
War powers refers to the powers exercised by Congress or the president during times of war or other crises affecting national security. Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution declares that the president is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He may direct the military after an official declaration of war from Congress. There is a lot of disagreement and confusion about what exactly the president has the power to do under the Constitution. The purpose of this paper is to determine what war powers the constitution and Congress give the president, domestically and abroad during times of war, and what the scope of those powers is.
The War Powers Resolution was the result of a consistent and ongoing power struggle between the President and Congress in the United States. The Constitution of the United States lays out the powers of the different branches of government. These branches are specifically designed to check each other to create a balance of power. In regards to foreign security affairs, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress has the power to declare war, maintain the army and navy, and control war funding. Under article II, section 2 the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy. The President can also veto a declaration of war made by the Congress which must be overturned by a 3/4ths vote by the Congress. The Presidential veto power was also used to create a hurdle for the Legislative branch in passing this policy. However, as this essay will establish, the Congress was able to pass the bill despite the opposition from the Executive branch. The War Powers Resolution is a controversial piece of legislation because it challenged the power of the President as the Commander and Chief of the army and navy. This challenge was perpetrated by Congress in order to check this power of the President and strengthen the significance of the right to declare war.
It is obvious the president was not given enough power under the Constitution. This is in part because Article II of the Constitution was written in a short period of time with little thought. Many presidents have had to make unclear decisions with little information about the circumstance in the Constitution and the president is beginning to take over the government due to increasing implied powers. However the president’s power has recently proven that it has outgrown the constitution and is swiftly evolving. The Constitution gave the president broad but vague powers, including the authorization to appoint judges and other officials with the Senate’s consent, veto bills, lead the military as commander and chief and make sure “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Many of these powers however are shared with the Legislative Branch, and cause conflict within the government.
...th, Congress can only ask for volunteers, but states are reluctant to send them. If Congress had the power to compel an army, then they wouldn’t have to worry about France, Spain, or the Indians attacking America. In addition, Congress can use the military to force down the brawls between states. Another problem is not having the power to create a national court system. If Congress has the power to form a national court, then Congress can settle the disputes between states. Thus, they won’t fight among themselves and weaken America’s defenses. The Articles of Confederation obstructs Congress from solving these defense problems in America.
The judicial branch will continue to play a vital role in the ‘struggle’ for power in foreign affairs and the use of armed forces. We will surely see public debate and congressional involvement over a recent decision by President Obama that authorized the ‘targeted killing’ of a US citizen abroad without due process under the pretext combating terrorism.
The Constitution is the pulse of our nation, pumping freedom from sea to shining sea. The Constitution is alive, and it acts as a guide to our leaders throughout the country, granting each citizen their individual rights. President Ronald Regan used the Constitution as framework for countless decisions in his eight years as president, from urging Mr. Gorbachev to “Tear down that wall!”, to maximizing the War on Drugs. President Regan utilized various limbs of the Constitution to serve the people in a multitude of ways, especially through Article II. Though the Article is compact, it has been understood and exercised in many different ways by our presidents. Our
Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Anti-federalists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local self-government, agreed that arms and liberty were in no doubt linked. The first discussion in which these views were articulated occurred in the context of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution concerning the powers of Congress to raise a standing army and its power over the militia. As initially proposed, Congress was to be provided the power to raise armies. Objections were raised that there was no check against standing armies in time of peace. The debate focused on how to avoid the dangers of a standing army; there was no dispute that a standing army posed a significant threat to the liberty of the people. The dilemma was that some type of national army would be necessary in time of war, but the results of waiting until war occurred to raise a national army could be disastrous.
The Founding Fathers limit the power of government in the Constitution utilizing many different tactics, many more than even the aforementioned. Their main intent was to make the nation less democratic and to keep the government small. The Constitution has accomplished the Founding Fathers' goal until now, and will hopefully continue doing so in the future.
...itution, there is an allotment for the suspension of habeas corpus if there is an instance of rebellion, which the Civil War was. Adams’ and Wilson’s policies, however, blatantly defied the Constitution. Although it is true that they did it in good intent, it’s similar to a poor person robbing a gas station to get some food; it may be with good intentions, but it is still wrong. The Constitution is what we, as Americans, have accepted as our unbreakable laws. In our eyes, the Constitution is almost sacred. So, when Presidents decide that their laws can override what we believe to be just, it lessens the value of the Constitution. It is my belief that in times of crisis or war, when national survival is at stake, the upholding of our Constitution is more imperative than ever, to prove to American citizens that our government will stand by what they have promised us.
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives.
Lincoln found powers in the constitutional clause making him "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states." He said that because of this clause, he had the right to use any means necessary to defeat the enemy. With this justification, he issued many executive orders before Congress even convened. Lincoln summoned the militia, ordered a blockade of the Confederacy ports, expanded the regular army beyond its legal limit, and directed government funds before congressional allocation. of these powers were granted to him in the Constitution.
The Separation of Powers was important to our Founders because the mistreatment of the power that the colonists gave to their leader was evident. The colonists preferred to avoid a similar occurrence in their new country, where they felt that their leaders were violating their rights. In one of James Madison’s Federalist Papers, it states that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, judiciary, in the hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny…(L)iberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and