"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
During the oath ceremony, members of the Armed forces as well as Department of Defense civilians pledge to uphold the Constitution, the President, and those officers who serve above them. Article I Section II of the Constitution gives the President the title “Commander and Chief,” which places him at the head of the military Chain of Command (Fisher, Harriger 284). It is this military supremacy, according to the Justice Department, which allows the President to act and make decisions regarding the military; war (284). Unlike its counterpart, however, the United States refrained from vesting the power to initiate war exclusively to the Executive branch. Instead, the Constitution grants Congress the powers to declare war, provide for armed forces, and pass legislation to authorize military action against another nation as done in the recent War against Afghanistan in 2001. While Congress has the ultimate authority to declare war; an authority determined constitutional during the quasi-wars, the President has been given the power to “behave in war-like behavior as long as it looks like war;” a power afforded by the Prize cases of 1863. Following the former, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 outlined th...
... middle of paper ...
...t stays within his power and respects those afforded to Congress, he is not acting unconstitutionally. Next, the Constitution and rights of citizens, always supercedes the President’s force during times of emergency. Finally, the President may detain an individual sought to threaten the safety of the American people however, may not forfeit an American citizen’s right to court and due process. Generally, though the President has war powers, “[he] needs the support and understanding of both Congress and the public” (306).
Works Cited
Fisher, Louis, and Katy J. Harriger. American Constitutional Law. Ninth ed. Vol. 1. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic, 2011. Print.
"Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History." U.S. Army Center of Military History, 14 June 2011. Web. 05 Nov. 2011. .
“It is not the oath itself that troubles me. There is nothing in it that I do not naturally and instinctively observ...
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.
Wesley Clark, a former United States Army General and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, states in his book Winning Modern Wars that “Defeating terrorism is more difficult and far-reaching than we have assumed....We may be advancing the ball down the field at will, running over our opponent's defenses, but winning the game is another matter altogether.” He also stated in the preface of the book “that the Bush administration had rushed us, pushed us, mislead, and manipulated us into war with Iraq with at the expense of the real war against Al- Qaeda.” Clark in writing stating this is essentially telling us we (The United States) have somehow overstepped our boundaries by acting in this “War on Terror,” and while he might have made a gutsy statement, he is correct. One would have to agree with Clark’s theory, our president, George W. Bush, who initiated the “War On Terror” essentially went into this war believing that armed forces were going to step into the terrorists backyard mow the lawn and come back home in one piece. Well, he was wrong, our troops have yet to come home and those who have did not come back in one piece; they came back with psychological bruises and others without their lives. Nevertheless, the impetus of this war was the lack of presidential checking that our Congress neglected to do. What caused it was that our former president, George W. Bush, unofficially expanded his powers as president, and acted impulsively rather than logically, which should have never and should never happen again. By discussing the original powers of the president as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as well as discussing how these powers have been changed, amplified, and taken advantage of during the “modern presidency” and ...
One of the biggest debated concerning the separation of powers it the attempt to determine which branch has the constitutional authority to undertake the involvement of war. This brings us to the argument of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution passed by congress in 1973 in effort to balance powers between congress and the president. Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution act states: "The President in every possible instance...
War powers refers to the powers exercised by Congress or the president during times of war or other crises affecting national security. Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution declares that the president is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He may direct the military after an official declaration of war from Congress. There is a lot of disagreement and confusion about what exactly the president has the power to do under the Constitution. The purpose of this paper is to determine what war powers the constitution and Congress give the president, domestically and abroad during times of war, and what the scope of those powers is.
Drey, Riley. "Misguided Patriotism and the Pledge of Allegiance." LDS Liberty. Riley Drey, 24/11/2010. Web. 24 March 2012.
It is obvious the president was not given enough power under the Constitution. This is in part because Article II of the Constitution was written in a short period of time with little thought. Many presidents have had to make unclear decisions with little information about the circumstance in the Constitution and the president is beginning to take over the government due to increasing implied powers. However the president’s power has recently proven that it has outgrown the constitution and is swiftly evolving. The Constitution gave the president broad but vague powers, including the authorization to appoint judges and other officials with the Senate’s consent, veto bills, lead the military as commander and chief and make sure “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Many of these powers however are shared with the Legislative Branch, and cause conflict within the government.
Williams, Charles F. "War Powers: A New Chapter in a Continuing Debate." Social Education. April 2003: 128-133. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," says Benjamin Franklin in Historical Review of 1759. Others tend to say just the opposite of what Ben Franklin quoted. With that being said, a key question comes up for discussion: Does the government have the Constitutional power to suspend the Constitution during a time of crisis? Certain documents were brought up for discussion that deal with certain articles from the Constitution and some acts/laws that the Congress passed to substantiate whether the government has certain powers. By using the U.S. Constitution, the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, an executive order from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and two federal Supreme Court cases, it will be proven that the government DOES have certain powers during a time of crisis.
Welch, Gruhl, Rigdon and Thomas (2011) assert that, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the executive power is granted solely to the President of the U.S. This clause of the constitution has continued to draw significant constitutional debate since the ratification of the Constitution. For example, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, in 1793 questioned whether the clause affords residual power to the President outside the enumerated powers stipulated in the Constitution. This debate is still significant in the contemporary times because it has a direct impact on the power of the President, and also, as an essential insinuation, it impacts on the freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizenry at home and in foreign countries. In this context, Pika and Maltese (2004) argue that, it is essential to mention a number of prominent Supreme Court cases that involve the outline of executive powers that have transpired, informed by in the perspective of foreign affairs, as well war. Therefore, it is not unforeseen that today, in the War on Terror, the...
War and Nation-Building The term ‘nation-building’ is often defined as evolution rather than revolution, though it can mean different things to different people. As that reason, nation-building refers to give assistance in the development of governmental basic structure, civil society and economics in a dysfunctional or unstable country in order to increase stability. Therefore, War, which may lead to civil or global confusion, does not promote nation-building.
“War is organized violence often on a large scale, involving sovereign states or geographic parts of the same state or distinct ethnic or social groups within a given state (civil war) (Magstadt, Thomas).” The three wars I will be covering are the Just Wars, Total Wars, and Proxy Wars.
"...1 hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince or state of whom or which I have been a subject or citizen...."
Expressed powers that can be found in the Constitution are Military, Judicial, Diplomatic, Executive, and Legislative powers. The president assumes the role of commander in chief. Presidents are allowed to declare war only with authorization from Congress. Article IV says that the “United States shall [protect] every State… against invasion… and …domestic violence” (Ginsberg 312). The judicial power the president holds is where he has the right to grant reprieves, pardons, and amnesty which involves the power of life and death over all individuals that pose a threat to the country. Diplomatic powers back the idea that the president is the head of the country. He’s the chief representative who’s the face while dealing with other nations. He can make treaties. He...