Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of the executive branch
War powers resolution ap gov essay
Role of the executive branch
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of the executive branch
Foreign policy has been a major point of contention between Congress and the President throughout US history. It represents a great challenge to the separation of powers defined by the Constitution. Recently this battle has intensified in the form of a legislative action proposed by Senators John McCain and Tim Kaine. In January of 2014, they announced legislation that would give Congress increased control over how the US uses the military in foreign conflicts. The proposed legislation would repeal the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and replace it with legislation gives Congress even more oversight over how the US uses its military in foreign engagements. This not only unnecessary, it is also a terrible idea. If passed it would severely compromise national security by limiting the President’s ability to respond quickly, effectively and in secret to emerging national security crises. It would also put these decisions in the hands of an ever increasingly dysfunctional and partisan Congress. The US Constitution already divides power between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Article II section 2 of the Constitution gives the President authority as commander-in-chief of the US Army and state militias when called into service. As commander-in-chief the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, to appoint foreign ambassadors and other ministers, and is allowed to consult with a hand selected group of advisors within the Executive branch on foreign policy issues. These powers are directly subject to Congressional oversight. Article I section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, raise an army, appropriate funds for military action, ratify treaties, and to confirm Presidential ... ... middle of paper ... ... days. The bill would not extend to humanitarian or covert missions. McCain’s justification for making this change is that the US has not declared war since it did so against the Axis in WWII, illustrating that the nature of war has changed. Unfortunately, this proposed change to the War Powers Resolution comes at a time when Congress has been increasingly ineffective and partisan. In 2013 Congress was only able to pass into law 55 bills. On average Congress passes 400 bills out of the 10,000 presented each year. That is under 10% of their annual average. With those result it appears that Congress can’t agree on anything. How can they expect to vote on giving the President the authority to deploy troops in defense of the nation within the allotted 30 days? This deadlock on foreign policy has come to a head recently with the events unfolding in the Ukraine.
The President of the United States is instrumental in the running of the country. He serves as the chief executive, chief diplomat, commander in chief, chief legislator, chief of state, judicial powers, and head of party. Article II of the Constitution states that the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. He also is tasked with the authority to appoint fifteen leaders of the executive departments which will be a part of the President’s cabinet. He or she is also responsible for speaking with the leaders the CIA and other agencies that are not part of his cabinet because these agencies play a key role in the protection of the US. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent
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.
The national government is separated into three branches: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. As James Madison points out in Federalist Paper #47, if all the branches were combined to form one single overpowering division, then tyranny would for sure ensue. He states, “Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” In order to retain the rights and liberty of our country, the government’s power must have balance. Each branch vests its power into smaller groups. Legislative vests its power to Congress, which consists of the Senate and House of Representatives. Executive to the President of the United States, and Judicial is invested in the Supreme Court. Our constitution outlines these ideals. Each branch does not overrule another and all are equal. [Doc
... 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)
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.
(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.
Terrorist attacks are a major crisis for a state, the attacks can’t only damage the state physically but they can also have an impact on the state’s economy. Nevertheless, state leaders must act accordingly and do their best to defend and protect their state. After experiencing the attack on the American embassies the President of the United States proposed a plan to have military intervention in both Iraq and Syria. The plan requires both Congressional and public approval along with the requirements brought by Just War Theory. As Crawford noted on “Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War,” no matter how bad war might be, it is necessary for there to be rules that can help prevent more harm. Thankfully, the proposed plan to go to war against ISIS can be justified on these moral grounds.
The War Powers Resolution was the result of a consistent and ongoing power struggle between the President and Congress in the United States. The Constitution of the United States lays out the powers of the different branches of government. These branches are specifically designed to check each other to create a balance of power. In regards to foreign security affairs, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress has the power to declare war, maintain the army and navy, and control war funding. Under article II, section 2 the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy. The President can also veto a declaration of war made by the Congress which must be overturned by a 3/4ths vote by the Congress. The Presidential veto power was also used to create a hurdle for the Legislative branch in passing this policy. However, as this essay will establish, the Congress was able to pass the bill despite the opposition from the Executive branch. The War Powers Resolution is a controversial piece of legislation because it challenged the power of the President as the Commander and Chief of the army and navy. This challenge was perpetrated by Congress in order to check this power of the President and strengthen the significance of the right to declare war.
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
The division of power is one of the most often cited principles of our constitutional system. For example, in terms of foreign policy, the Senate must provide advice and consent to the president when making treaties and appointments. Conversely, the constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war and provide the military funding while the President acts as the commander in chief of the armed forces. This sharing of power creates friction between the executive and legislative branches when they are in disagreement and “is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy”.
... two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly. That is the fact that the military is best suited for conducting wars. Politicians are not. It is not the place of politicians to be involved in the decision making procedure in regards to war or military strategy. The White House has significant control in military matters. That control should be used to help the military in achieving its goals as it was in the Gulf War where George Bush said specifically to let the military do its job. The only alternative to this is to use political influence in the same way that it was used in Vietnam. References Wittman, Sandra M. "Chronology of the Vietnam War." Vietnam: Yesterday and Today Oakton Community College. Skokie, Illinois. 16 May 1996: n.p. United States, Joint Resolution of Congress H. J. RES 1145. Aug. 7, 1964. Department of State Bulletin 24 Aug. 1965.
World War II ended in 1945, but America could not rest. “Serious discussion about reorganization began in Congress and the military department in 1944 and aroused much public interest” (Trask 1997). Because the Air Force played such a large role, discussion of separating the Air Force from the Army Air Forces (AAF) began. A proposal was created to establish one department for the United States Armed Forces, combining all the military branches under one department. “On 19 December 1945, President Truman sent a message to Congress recommending a single department of national defense with three coordinate branches – land, sea, and air.” (Trask 1997). Management of Military and foreign policies were needed during peacetime as they were during wartime. The United States need for a national defense department, and a need to prevent any future attacks like Pearl Harbor, led to President Truman signing the National Security Act of 1947.
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives.
Howell defies unilateral powers as “…instruments by which the presidents set all sorts of consequential domestic and foreign policy (Paige 1977)” (Howell 242). To explain, Howell argues unilateral actions allow for presidents to bypass Congress in attempt to create domestic and foreign policy. Howell also brings to light “The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly recognize any of these policy vehicles (executive agreements, executive orders, executive memoranda, proclamations, etc.)”, but the president uses them as justifications for his actions. Howell provides his audience historical examples of such unilateral actions.
Several aspects of the executive branch give the presidency political power. The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force. Second, the presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289). This means that the veto doesn’t even necessarily hav...