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…
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…
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
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
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
Another constitutional power of the President is Commander-in-Chief. In spite of this, the Congress has been given the sole right to declare war on any other country or city that attacks the USA in any form. In theory the congress are referred to as more superior than the President, and are seen to have more power as they make the final decisions on whether or not to declare war. However in practice, this power has not been used since 1941.
Rostow, Eugene V., "Great Cases Make Bad Law: The War Powers Act" (1972). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2143.
... terms of balanced separation of powers is met in the War Powers Resolution. The congressional power to declare war was meant as one of several checks on the President's authority over the use of American military forces. The War Powers Resolution helped to restore war power balance between the president and congress. Further, it is a practical restraint on the presidential use of armed forces and an appropriate mechanism for the president and the congress to share in decisions pertaining to involvement in war. The War Powers Resolution does not violate the constitution; rather if reflect the objective of sharing powers between legislative and the executive. It helps curb abuse of power performed by any of the branches. Thus, the War Powers Resolution is in compliance with the Constitutional roles of congress and the executive branches. (RushKoff, 1344-1346)
(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.
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
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.
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
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
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