The War Powers Act The War Powers Act or sometimes referred to as the War Powers Resolution is passed by congress. A group of Senators led by Jacov K. Javits of New York proposes fundamentally to change the constitutional relationship between President and Congress in the field of foreign affairs (Rostow). This act is an aftermath of the Vietnam War and it addresses a set of procedure for both President and Congress in the situation where the United States forces abroad could lead the United States into armed conflict. This act can be broken down into several parts. The first part asserts the policy behind the law, and the President’s power as a Commander in Chief is exercised only as a respond to declaration of war by Congress or in respond to national emergency; an attack upon the United States. The second part requires the President to discuss and consult with Congress before take an action in the U.S. Armed forces into hostilities and continue to discuss as long as the U.S. Armed forces remain in such condition. The third part explains that President should meet the requirement when he wants to introduce U.S Armed forces. The fourth part concerns more in congressional action and procedure. For instance, this part explains the procedure regarding legislation to withdraw the U.S. forces. The fifth part states the rules to be used in interpreting the War Power Act. At last, the sixth part explains separability provision in which if there is any part of the law is invalid, the rest of the law shall not considered invalid too. Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8 of the Constitution (Carter). Article I, section 8 clearly states that Con... ... middle of paper ... ...nt and Congress shared power as an Executive and Legislative. As an Executive, President can command to take an action in military force. Meanwhile, as a Legislative, Congress has power to declare the war. There are a few controversies regarding to some parts in the War Power Act. Yet, the War Power Act does not violate the constitution. Works Cited Rostow, Eugene V., "Great Cases Make Bad Law: The War Powers Act" (1972). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2143. Carter, Stephen L., "The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution" (1984). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2225. Reisman, W. Michael, "War Powers: The Operational Code of Competence" (1989). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 742. Mataconis, D. (2011, March 21). Retrieved 2013, from Outside The Beltway: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/congress-the-president-and-war-powers-under-the-constitution/
Stewart R. W. (2005). American Military History (Vol. 1). The United States Army and the
Wilson, T. W. (n.d.). "Fourteen Points" Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp
In both wars, “Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War,” (War Powers 2008). The result of the action to go to war in Vietnam led to the passing of the the War Powers Resolution in 1973. Since World War II, the presidency seemed to have control over Congress, which did change after the Vietnam War. The wars, though, were meant to protect the ideals of democracy in other parts of the world. However, to their claim, they say that, “since the Constitution was adopted there have been at least 125 instances in which the President has ordered the armed forces to take action or maintain positions abroad without obtaining prior congressional authorization, starting with the ‘undeclared war’ with France,” (Woods). However, they include several things that were very small, and not very large scale attacks, not even against other federal
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
(Sell Lecture Notes, p.6) Congress shares responsibility with the president in declaring war, negotiating treaties with other countries and proving funds for soldiers and weapons. This is when conflicts come to head. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of this conflict, when the President waged war without a formal declaration of war from Congress. Because of this Congress then passed the War Powers Act in 1973. (Sell Lecture Notes, p.2) The Presidency has many responsibilities and powers.
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.
Yanak, Ted, and Pam Cornelison. "War Powers Act." The Great American History Fact-Finder. Dec. 1 1993: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
"Treason, Sedition and Civil Rights in the U. S. Law." Congressional Digest 14.10 (1935): 227-
The War Measures Act is not justified as it supports the violation of rights and freedoms of individuals, in effort to eradicate all threats to keep society safe. Interference within the economy by the federal government results to a lack of personal freedom, as it takes away an individual’s decision on how to spend and act; they can intervene directly in the economy to control transportation, manufacturing, trade, and agricultural production. Legal rights are highly impacted, as the act suspends habeas corpus; the right of a detained person to be brought before a judge or other official to decide whether the detention is lawful. Therefore, any suspected threat to the government could be imprisoned or deported, without being given a fair trial;
Spitzer, Robert J. "The Law: The "Protective Return" Pocket Veto" Presidential Aggrandizement of Constitutional Power." Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 4 (2001): 720-732. Print.
The book raises the importance of, and questions, the writ of habeas corpus. Carter used a writ of habeas corpus to get a federal trial. Many question the legality of Carter going into federal jurisdiction, when his case should have been heard before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It was a gamble, but the federal judge gave fair justice to Carter and Artis. The State of New Jersey appealed the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court’s ruling.
The 'Secondary' of the 'Se Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. 22 November 2004. The U.S. Sedition Act. 1996. The 'Secondary' of the 'Second World War I Document Archive. 22 November 2004.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
Roberts, Adam, and Richard Guelff, eds. Documents on the Laws of War. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1982.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company