Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
War powers act uncostitutional
The legislative and executive relationship
Role of congress
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: War powers act uncostitutional
War Powers Act of 1973 In 1973, during the height of the Vietnam War, president vetoed the War Powers Resolution. Congress then answered back by overriding the veto to put in place the new legislation called the War Powers Act of 1973. This act set in motion congress’ foot hold in any future military undertakings by requiring the president to have all the information received via the United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty Organization to be reviewed prior to authorization of funds or movement of forces into hostile environments. Establishing the War Powers Act of 1973 ensures that war powers are divided, that Congress and the president have the responsibility to ensure the upmost security of our nation, and adds growth to presidential power. …show more content…
Intent of Congress The intent of congress in the War Powers Act of 1973 was to ensure the president of the United States did not send our military troops into hostilities without the proper approval and funding. This allows for thorough analysis of the current environment in regards to future operations and also ensures that troops are trained properly with the necessary equipment to go to war. Under the Constitution was powers are divided; the president can wage war and congress has the responsibility to declare wars and fund them. Although war powers are divided, the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to consult with congress prior to using military dynamism, and it gives the president a sixty-day time limit when sending troops to war without the consensus from congress (D. Watts, 2010). Congressional and Presidential Responsibility “Congress can be both a potential adversary and key partner in the formulation and conduct of national security policy.
Conversely, the President and his team cannot sustain any national security policy course without the support of Congress and the American people.” (J. Bartholomees, 2008). Under the War Powers Act of 1973 congress and the president have the responsibility of monitoring our nation’s security. While the president has the authority to make treaties, it’s congress’ job to keeps an eye on the laws of its administration in order to ensure they are being interpreted and executed properly. The power of agreement is essential between the two parties (E. Meese, …show more content…
2011). The act put two requirements on the president, one being to inform congress of any commitment of troops within 48 hours and to withdraw troop in 60-90 days. However, with stating this prior to the act being put in place there were multiple presidents not doing there due diligence and informing congress of what was happening in these countries or before the movement of troops. For example President Nixon was bombing Cambodia in secret without informing Congress. (B. Creech, 2013). Over the years American troops have been placed into multiple conflicts that have not been completely approved by congress, nor has the act been invoked entirely. Congress did limit military involvement by citing the act for Somalia in 94, former Yugoslavia in 99 and Libya in 2011. During the Lebanon (82-83) and the Iraq (91) wars the President did ask for congressional permission and was given authority to mobilize troops to be moved in to combat operations. Presidential Power The War Powers Act of 1973 is a necessary extension of congressional authority in response to the growth of presidential power.
Over the years the presidential power has grown in response to the increasingly diverse U.S. economic and social systems, this has indirectly reinforced the presidential power in national security. (Sarkesian, Williams, & Cimbala, 2013). Presidents have sent troops to war multiple times while congress has only declared war five times. The president is the commander-in-chief and while presidential powers are momentous, their leadership is often dependent on their power to persuade others that what he or she wants of them is in their best interest (J. Bartholomees,
2008). Even though the president is the commander-in-chief he should be aware of the representative roles of congress and its power over the purse. To be successful in the presidency, they cannot afford to disregard congressional roles or isolate themselves from the legislative processes, nor should they distance themselves from the congressional leadership. If a president doesn’t do what is necessary to abide by the policy and keep up with congress or even ask for insight in regards to rules or regulations of what is allowed with the movement of troops, they will find themselves in a stalemate with every part of the position they hold. Conclusion Establishing the War Powers Act of 1973 ensures that not only does congress have the responsibility of declaring war but the president can also wage war when necessary. National security policy plays a vital part in keeping our nation safe and the president and congress take on that responsibility as a team. As stated above, the cooperation of both parties is essential for success. The War Powers Act of 1973 has added growth to the presidential power by establishing an effective relationship with congress. Although the president in the commander-in-chief his or her success relies heavily on their leadership and the relationship built with congress.
As the President of the United States, a president have powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what is presidential power. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Of the most powerful people in the world, the President of the United States of America hits the top of the list. Even though the policy agendas that presidents set as they take office often go unfulfilled, the office of President is still one of the most envied spots to have. But why could this be? It is because the United States is the most powerful nation in the world and with the President as the leader, he is said to have the most power in the world ("Top Ten Most Powerful Countries in the World"). With power comes responsibility and with this position he must govern a country while abiding by the rules.
After an analysis of the preliminary speeches Former Senator Robert C. Byrd gave in the early 2000s one may deduce that the senator had the welfare of his fellow Americans in mind as the copious amounts of people around the world might be effected by this war. These speeches are in regard to the grand dilemma that presented itself over a decade ago. This conflict happened to be whether or not we ought to go to war with Iraq. The vein of the initial speech, Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution, is cautionary. Byrd is attempting to emblematically pump the breaks on the notion that we have a duty to wage war. In the second speech A Preordained Course of Action on Iraq, Byrd continues to convey his disapprobation as well as recurrently referencing
Claremont Education. 18 May 2006. . War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance? 14 February 2006 -. Congressional Research Service Reports -.
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...
Unfortunately, the President’s consistency with Republican principles in matters of political power was not nearly as strong as his resolve to reduce the national debt. Under Jefferson and Madison, the federal government assumed political powers that the Constitution did not allot for. While prior to his presidency, Jefferson, then a strict constructionist had argued that the government should not assume any power unless specifically provided for in the Constitution, the Louisiana Purchase where America purchased a vast tract of land for $15 million, compromised these lofty ideals. In terms of the military, Thomas Jefferson had come to power vowing to reduce military size and power. Contrary to those principles, the Barbary War, where for nearly three years the American military exercised a naval blockade of the North African coast wasted millions of dollars of the people’s money and unconstitutionally violated states rights and strict constructionist principles, in their place asserting an alien un-Republican nationalism.
The War Measures Act was a law passed in 1914 by the Canadian Government in Canada during WWI, amongst many others that the government had passed that allowed the government to take control of communications, establish censorship of transatlantic cables, and organize the militia (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 39). The War Measures Act itself allowed the government to: censor and suppress publications, writing, maps, plans, photographs, communications, and means of communication, arrest, detain, exclude, and deport persons, control harbours, ports, and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels, control the transport of persons and things by land, air, or water control trade, production, and manufacturing, and appropriate and dispose of property and of the use thereof (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 39). It gave the government emergency powers “allowing it to govern by decree” while Canada was in war (War). In World War I (1914-1920), it had been used to imprison those who were of German, Ukrainian, and Slavic decent, and was used in the same way again in WWII (1939-1945) to imprison Japanese-Canadians, and to seize all of their belongings. They were then relocated into internment camps and concentration camps (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 171). Both times, those that were persecuted did not have the right to object (War). Those these laws had been created for the purpose of protecting Canadians from threats or wars for security, defense, peace order and welfare of Canada it instead greatly limited the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens and debasing immigrants of enemy countries both in WWI and WWII (Bolotta, Angelo et. Al 39).
(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.
McMahon, Robert. “Balance of War Powers: the U.S. President and Congress.” Council of Foreign Relations. September 2013. http://www.cfr.org/united-states/balance-war-powers-us-President-congress/p13092#p5.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
He was also a Gulf War veteran who commanded an armored cavalry. His desire in writing this book was to examine, through the recently declassified documents, manuscript collections, and the Joint Chief of Staff official histories, where the responsibility for the Vietnam foreign policy disaster lay, but also examine the decisions made that involved the United States in a war they could not win. This book details the discussion of government policy in the stages of the Vietnam crisis from 1961-July 1965. It examines the main characters of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert McNamara, in addition to the military, which included the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It began in the Kennedy era amidst the Bay of Pigs incident and how that led to mistrust of the military planning by advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
Understanding and evaluating presidents’ performance often poses challenges for political experts. The nation votes one president at the time and each presidency faces different tests. The environments surrounding a presidency have a tremendous impact on the success and failure of that presidency. In addition, the president exercises his power through a check and balance system embody in the Constitution. As stated in (Collier 1959), the Constitution created a government of “separated institutions sharing power.” As a result, a president works with others institutions of the government to shape the nation’s agenda. Thus, determining a presidential performance becomes difficult, especially when it comes to comparing the performance among presidencies.