Some people believe that The War Powers Resolution is fine and is completely constitutional. Anyone who argues that The War Powers Resolution is constitutional states that it recognizes congressional authority provided by article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution. The argument is that The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional because it exercises the war powers. It is, however, constitutional because it describes the war powers (Carter, 1984). While recognizing what is said in the United States Constitution, the idea that the War Powers Resolution balances the war powers of both the President and Congress is what drives this belief that it is, in fact, constitutional. Some believe that The War Powers Resolution …show more content…
has been correct in the separation of powers and that if it hasn’t worked, it shouldn’t be removed, only replaced (Griffin, 2013). Some people say that the War Powers Resolution does not work and is a battle Congress cannot seem to win.
While the original point of creating the War Powers Resolution was to withhold the President to sustain wars without approval from Congress, some argue that today the War Powers Resolution is used as a tool for Congress to condemn the President about the action of war. Gordon Adams, a foreign policy professor at American University stated “The rhetoric is sadly familiar, it just flips by party, depending on who's deploying the troops.” (Greenblatt, 2011). Many people believe that when the United States goes to war, it should not be decided by a single person. However, some say no President has been able to accept that the War Powers Resolution is, in fact, constitutional and that they think that it violates the separation of powers and their authority as commander in chief (Greenblatt, 2011). The intention of the War Powers Resolution has been …show more content…
skewed in the past, as President Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon mislead Congress multiple times about the Vietnam War (Griffin, 2013). In fact, Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution on October 25, 1973. Nixon stated that the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional and imposed dangerous limitations (History.com, 2015). Even with Nixons veto, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution the next month. Robert F. Turner, from The University of Virginia, stated “The President clearly has the power to use military force without first getting permission from Congress or complying with the terms of the War Powers Resolution. While, it might be wise to get Congress on board, the Constitution doesn’t even require the President to ‘consult’ with Congress.”(NCC, 2013). I suppose that for most people, it is not a disagreement in the War Powers Resolution, but a belief that it does not work The separation of powers in war-making decisions has not always worked smoothly.
The attacks on The World Trade center on September, 11 2001 created complications between the separation of power between the President and Congress regarding war-making decisions. Upon the attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Terrorists. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and captured suspected members of the Taliban government and placed them in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This highlights a problem with the War Powers Resolution because AUMFs bring up the question of where the definition of literal declarations of war fall and it seems that AUMFs are its constitutional equivalent (Griffin, 2013). These detainees were held due to the belief that because Guantanamo Bay was outside US jurisdiction, that they could not protect themselves with the use of habeas corpus and other protections stated in the United States Constitution. These prisoners were then able to get help from people within the United States and as a result, habeas corpus petitions were made within the United States Federal Courts. The first case in which the judicial system reviewed the Bush Administration policies was in 2004, the case of Rasul vs. Bush. The court found that by law, they had to review the petitions. The Bush Administration reacted to Rasul by allowing prisoners to bring their petitions to military tribunals. The Supreme Court then stated that the President did not have
the constitutional authority to try prisoners in military tribunals and did not allow that the AUMF stretch the Presidents abilities. Congress then acted by passing the Detainee Treatment Act. The Detainee Treatment Act states that no area of the judicial system has jurisdiction to hear a petition of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Court declined the Bush Administration again and stated that a suspension of habeas corpus requires a suspension of the writ and that removing the federal courts from jurisdiction does not suspend the writ. The Court also argued that the detainees lacked proper safety measures to guarantee a fair trial and the ability to determine their charges (Story cited from: Cornell, 2015). Another more recent situation where there was conflict within the Presidents war powers was President Obamas coordination in invading Libya in 2011. Obama decided to start this military action and then proceeded to try and justify his actions. Obama stated that the reason he enforced military action in Libya was to save lives of pro-democracy protesters who were targets of an onslaught by Libyan dictator, Muammar al-Qaddafi and that without one US militant, achieved the goals the invasion was meant to bring about (Kuperman, 2015). While Obama was facing warnings about pulling out troops from Congress, the Obama Administration responded by stating that they are not violating the War Powers Resolution because NATO was in charge and no U.S. troops were in Libya and so the they were not violating the resolution. This has been found to be relatively common where the Presidents try to follow some of the aspects of the War Powers Resolution while violating other aspects (Greenblatt, 2011). Some state that because of this attack, Libya has become a failed state and now serves as a safe place for al Queda and ISIS (Kuperman, 2015).
If the right to habeas corpus is not being extended to the detainee, the majority judges are of the opinion that the branches such as executive and etc. except judicial, would have a whole control over Guantanamo Bay causing the judicial branch to have no position in reviewing the legal processes. The majority judges had stated
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
In order to fulfill these obligations, Congress uses a number of techniques to check the executive branch. One technique is the usage of committee hearings and investigations. In the mid to late 1960s, for example, Senator J. William Fulbright organized Senate hearings which mobilized opposition to the Vietnam War. Consequently, the Gulf Tonkin Resolution, which gave the president the power to authorize usage of “conv...
Yes, Lisa is correct in saying that congress support did progressively diminish, expanding presidential control over situations. With this said, I think that opens the doors to the possibility of error. From the traditionally left-wing news company The New Yorker, my colleague Jane Mayer was one of many to reveal that brutality was often the product of aggressive policy by the US. When former vice president Dick Cheney contended in 2002 that “it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal…to achieve our objective”, I don’t think people fully comprehended the seriousness of these words (The New Yorker, 2015). Unbelievably, it was reported that programs such as the extraordinary renditions and covert operations “expanded beyond recognition”. However it wasn’t just the anti-war outlets which were reporting on this. The prestigious and world renowned publication company The Washington Post directly reinforced Mayer’s statements. A primary account written by Washington Post in 2002, reporting after the very launch of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror, illuminated that since 2001, 600 detainees had already been confined to Guantanamo Bay for terrorist questioning. This is a colossal figure – 600 supposed terrorists in merely one year. Furthermore, the article also publicized that while the Clinton administration “pioneered” often violent interrogation procedures –known as
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.
(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.
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.
War-making powers were given to Congress to prevent a single person from being able to declare war. The president needed continuous approval from Congress before doing anything regarding foreign policy. Escaping from the rigid monarchy of George III ensured that the settlers would avoid giving one entity the power to make such influential decisions. However, presidents increasingly started and carried out unauthorized wars, such as President Polk and Mexico. This “emergency prerogative” was and continues to be abused to it’s fullest extent. It allows the president to ignore the Constitution by declaring a state of emergency. Granted, many of these decisions were very crucial to national safety and there are times where presidents have used the prerogative to push their own objectives forward without having to explain themselves. As a result, the military expenses by presidential action have consumed more than half of the budget. Schlesinger has written that even the CIA is not under the control of Congress, “fewer than a dozen members of Congress have any idea how much money the CIA spends each year, and probably none of them has much of an idea what the agency actually does with that money” said Representative Findley in 1973. This lack of regulation from Congress shows that it is not only the fault of the president for their abuses of power, it is also the responsibility of Congress to enforce their own rules
John Yoo’s defense of the Military Commission Act of 2006 is an implicit commentary on the Hamdan versus Rumsfeld decision of 2006. The case of Hamdan expresses unilateral executive power as unbounded in a very tangible manner. In this decision and defense it is evident that the unilateral powers the president holds seem to be unbounded. Yoo’s promotion and defense of the MCA of 2006 neglects the moral costs of prohibiting habeus corpus rights, the treatment of the detainees, and the danger of unilateral executive power.
The US had the right to send troops if these terms were violated, and were also given a lease for a naval base at Guantanamo
The U.S. Supreme Court would frequently dismiss complaints from Congress related to foreign relations because they were considered to be “political questions” (Hook 115). Congress sometimes used the courts to attempt to punish or restrict the presidents. An example of a case was Goldwater et al. v. Carter. In this case, “…the Supreme Court supported President Jimmy Carter’s right to terminate the U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. In the Court’s view, the case was ‘political’ because no clear violations of the Constitution had occurred” (Hook 116). Another example of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the president came in a series of cases, Crockett v. Reagan and Lowry v. Reagan. In these cases, “…the Court again dismissed as ‘political’ congressional claims that the president had overstepped his constitutional bounds by deploying troops in conflict overseas” (Hook 116). The Supreme Court was consistently dismissing Congress’
The war of 1812 is a war of trial and error, hardship, and great death. Many men, women, and children lost their lives in a conflict between countries that had fought only 30 years prior, with the same outcome. It all starts around the year 1803 when the British begin doing the unimaginable to American sailors on trading ships.
Regarding executive powers, and more specifically, war powers, the US Constitution states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices”. Furthermore, it states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties…. And appoint Ambassadors”. The President’s war powers are rather vague and open-ended as the question states, but some may argue that now, because of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, this
However, that is not always the case, in the decision of the Boumediene V. Bush case revealed that under the formation of the Military Commissions Act, U.S courts jurisdictions are not limited for non – U.S citizens cannot deny the rights to captured combatants. The divide between actual convictions and unfair detention is further widened by the Military Commissions Act, denying prisoners in Guantanamo Bay their requests to rights. The United States legal system and higher government are acting unfairly by not extending their jurisdiction to a facility with a few hundred detainees whose guilt of criminal activity has yet to be confirmed. According to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the United States doesn’t have jurisdiction over the Habeas corpus request of Guantanamo Bay detainees. I find the Detainee Treatment act of 2005 to defeat the purpose of Habeas corpus and the justice impaction it’s supposed to create. Detainees are held for an indefinite amount of time without the right to seek legal representation or even a court