Essay On War Power Resolution Of 1973

Pedro Contreras

Daniel Jordan

Political Science

12/11/17

DOES THE WAR POWER RESOLUTION OF 1973 NEED TO BE CHANGED?

War is a situation between two nations or regions where they both arrange in conflict. War is accompanied with warfare and casualties with both human lives and conducts financial crisis. Over the centuries, war has not changed in the slightest bit. Even the president, being the Commander in Chief, has complete control over the United States military. Debates rise to question that should the president have this power to command military personnel without the consent of United States Congress. Many consequences can emerge from these decisions from either within the nation or from other foreign lands. Congress should be able to

monitor the president and his actions and thoroughly revise available options before coming up with a conclusion as colossal as sending military troops into action.
The War Power Resolution of 1973 was originally branded to be the War Powers Act, though the term “Resolution” is a wrongfully given name for it.

Both of the powers have been given to the Legislative and Executive branches, being that the president, the Commander in Chief of all of the United States Armed Forces (Article 1, Section 2) and Congress has the ability to make the documents for the war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article 1 Section 8). This resolution has been repeatedly interrogated of how much can the president’s power he can wield to put U.S military soldiers into harmful situations without a document of war or Congress’ approval. The specification on why Congress passed this law in the first place was since the closure of the Vietnam War, they wanted to announce the problems of the war and produce a plan of action that the President and Congress can lead themselves into any situation where warfare would be occurring. War Power Resolution can be unlinked and examined into several different parts. The first would be that the purpose of this law will be to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541)

(Bigel, Alan I. “War Powers). Second part of the Resolution would be where the President would meet with Congress before suggesting to send the military inside other countries. Third part is that the President must agree to report while he starts to move U.S soldiers into other countries. Fourth installment of the War Powers Act is all about the responsibility of actions in Congress’ plans. The fifth section would declare certain boundaries and rules that are to be expected while executing the War Powers Resolution. The sixth and final part would be described as if any section of the War Powers Resolution would be proven to be false, the other parts will not be affected in any way, shape, or form. Plenty of United States Presidents believed that the War Power has limited the capability of the Executive Branch. Because of this the Resolution has been the base of conversation and of course, it has captured the attention of billions of people worldwide. The most recognized incident that happened because of the Resolution was September 11th. Because of the terrorist attack of 9/11, Congress accepted a law that would allow the President at the time, Bush, to use any necessary force against anyone involved in the 9/11 attacks.
With that given information about the War Powers Resolution, it concludes that the War Powers Resolution must be changed in some way.

Drastic or minor, Congress has to put the President in a place where he will not control the military all by his lonesome. Especially when there is a President which has a hot-headed personality and wants to begin warfare on any country that would not meet his standards. There have been a handful of Presidents that used the War Power Resolution in an incorrect fashion even without the temper nor the high standards. In 1975 President Ford reported that he completed the repossession of the Mayaguez, which was a merchant ship that had been stolen by Cambodians. Reagan in 1981, sent troops to El Salvador and failed to report and submit it to Congress. Now this lead to a bigger consequence that Congress members filed multiple lawsuits because they experienced unsatisfactory manners of the Resolution. Ten years later, George W. Bush did send a cluster of reports towards Congress concerned about the pile of military personal in Operation Desert Storm. He seized the position and stated that he would not need authority from Congress to transfer U.N solutions that gave members of the state to “use all necessary means” (Public Law 102-1) to force Iraq forces out. There have been hundreds of incidents where “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, Tom). In conclusion with the causes of the President violating the method of the War Power Resolution, the trend is that after the report to Congress the President pushes military forces on countries without further recognition. Alas, this would be another point that Congress needs a tighter grip on the President and his plans, procedures, and mindset. The Resolution must change for future Presidents to be put in check with affairs concerning the military and other countries’ guidelines.
The law of the War Power Resolution is odd and put together in a complex way. It claims that the President can summon military forces in case of declaration of war, authorization from a higher power, or in case of a nationwide emergency such as a threat to the United States, its military, or any of the territories or possession (Woods, Tom). In result of this, the President can choose to put military to wherever he pleases to which, obviously, is unconstitutional. He may demand troops to enforce disastrous actions wherever they might be. Now clearly the POTUS must report within forty-eight of what his actions consist of but forty-eight might be too much of a time frame where the President can pull strings with the military in other lands. For the benefit of the United States, the War Powers Act has to be dramatically changed or repealed. This repeal would get rid of the “privilege” that the President can summon the military in any part of the world. Thus, would remove the age-long debate within the branches on where the President discussing the reports were on time and used correctly.