The constitution divides the war power between the congress and the President, in article I, section 8 the constitution says; ‘That congress shall have power …to declare war. ’ and in article II, section 2 it says; ‘ The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of United States. ’ The founders divided the power in my opinion for the reason that they don’t want to make the government to powerful. The founders also wanted to create dependency on Congress and the President.
Both sides need to have an agreement about going to war. They created a balance of power giving congress the right to declare war and the President the power of chief of the US Military. If the President decides to go to war he needs congress’s approval it was designed for that very purpose so it could create an obstacle going to war. Congress can’t declare war without the US Military. The US military won’t go to war without receiving orders from their commander in Chief, which is the President of the United Stated.
With the division of power both parts of congress and the President will analyze the situation before going to War, just for the fact that one depends on the other. My Opinion about the division of power written by our founding Fathers was a great decision. Because their vision created a government to come together that makes decisions and governs the nations together as one unified nation not as, congress and President. The war power Act of 1974 was passed after the Vietnam War It puts restrictions on the President, power as an example if he wanted to send the Army to war without the congress consent.
The Essay on 1973 War Powers Act
1. If no judicial court of authority, namely the United States Supreme Court, has stricken the 1973 War Powers Act and declared it null and void constitutionally, how is it that the authors of the text book are able to conclude Congress has few, if any, war powers remaining? How can this be? The law is the law, is it not? (Specifically, explain the political phenomenon that has occurred here and ...
He has to inform the congress in 48 hours in advance and congress would need to approve the action within 60 days, if congress doesn’t approve the President decision to go to war, he would have 30 more days to withdraw the troops. Looking at The War Power act of 1974, I believe that this adjustment was added to the President war Power to regulate more of his actions, and giving congress more control over what the President can do. Things don’t always work that way.
As we all know the last time that congress declared war, was world war II, but also the President had put the troops into confrontation with other nations many times, with out the congress’s approval. To me it just seems to be another confrontation of power between congress and the President, because the President some how will end up doing what needs to do for the benefit of the nation or his own political benefit. In the end, he will always have the citizens in his favor because he will say; that it was to protect the nation or any other reason he deems necessary.
On the other hand congress can’t say that much even if they don’t approve the confrontation with other nations they will end up giving funds for confrontations. Me as student I try to understand all this commotion between congress and the President but in the end, as always I don’t really understand, because if you don’t approve of something why would you give funds for it. I just hope that all of this division of power that is going over the other is for the good of our nation.
The theory of the preemptive war is to protect the nation and our allies of potential future and possible acts, and this is good if you have information that is sustainable and factual. Our nation always will be ahead of the time of their opponent’s. As this situation arises the united state will come to a better understanding and preparation on an impending attack. The preventive war is to protect the United States and our allies from other nations that could in the future created an attack against us.
The Essay on President Bush Power Machiavelli Nuclear
George Bush and Niccolo Machiavelli are two very influential political figures that share some similar ideals. Machiavelli's work was never intended to be applied to republics, or a democratic government. The advice written in The Prince would have likely been applied in the time of absolute government, when countries were ruled by one leader. It is a work which, as Machiavelli himself says that ...
The preemptive war is different from the preventive war case in point the cold war, case in point the Israel attack against Egypt in 1967, preventive was a possibility of a war if nothing has been confirmed that the nations are being attacked. The preventive war act it is almost as if the US assumes a threat is being made. Then the US develops a strategy against assumed enemies. I don’t believe that pre-emptive war is different from the past for example the Korean war, the world war II. I still believe that we should attack only if we have a sustainable reason for it, to protect our nation and if also our allies need help.
I don’t believe that preemptive war violates the constitution; congress is in approval of the war, if they are in agreement the war does not violate the act. If don’t approve then yes it does violate the constitution. The power act states; if not approved by the congress the troops should have 30 days to withdraw. I think that this case is very tricky to say that yes it violated and no it does not because the situation needs to be analyzed by booth parties involved with our nations securities.
For example we invaded Iraq without the approval of the congress. Just because we had information that they had weapons of massive destruction and it could be used to attack our nation. This part I agree, they invaded because it was a case of preemptive war and the President had to protect the nation and allies no matter what. Than after the invasion no weapons of mass destruction were fund and the President did not request the troops to withdraw, so in this case I believe it was in violation of the constitution and a abuse of power.
Once again if congress doesn’t approve the invasion, the President as commander in chief of our nation, will attack with the funds that the congress has given. The preemptive war doesn’t make America and its allies safer; on the contrary I think it just opens doors for more possible attacks. Just because we as nation have the resources to find out if and where something may happen even before it happens doesn’t make me feeling more secure. All it does is create a miss-leading message to the enemies because of the power that our nation has.
The Essay on Supreme Court President Congress Federal
The basis of our government was realized by Lord Acton, a British historian when he wrote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He knew that if any one person or group ran a country, they would soon become power crazed and lose the respect and support of its citizens. This is the reason why our forefathers came up with a system of checks and balances to ensure that no ...
The President as commander in chief of our nation, under the constitution does not have the power to kill a terrorist unless approved by congress. In my opinion he has the power to kill any threat to our nation and our allies. He should also have the power of preemptive war any where in the world. Not only will President be protecting our nations but also our allies. I believe that our allies are on the same agreement or otherwise they would not support the United States on many of the decisions that we make as a country.
I think there should be some regulations on his power or it will be a mess. Under the authority of the law 107-40 September 18,2001 107th Congress “ the united States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect united citizens both at home and abroad. ” The law says the President Obama and any other Presidents has the right to order the killing of a the terrorist or stop any threat against the US, in Somalia or in any other nations, because as we all know that was not the first terrorist that the President gave orders to kill.
I just think that as long as the orders are for the good of our nation he should keep doing what he and every other President before him has done which is to protect our nations and many others that need our help. At the end this not congress or President that did, but yes our nation as one United to protect our citizens and many others, trying to created a world with democracy an rights.
