Is our current system for deciding when, where and for how long to deploy US armed forces fairly balanced between the executive and legislative branches? Do "The People" have enough input?
Discuss with regard to the War Powers Act and the current conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Uganda, etc.
Due Friday by 7:30am
27 comments:
The War Powers Act, though passed with good intentions, does not distribute war powers evenly. In one scenario, Congress can basically control the decisions of the Commander In Chief. If Congress votes against the President’s decision to deploy armed forces, the President must withdraw those troops. This only shows that the legislative branch may not always trust that the President is making informed decisions, which is unhealthy for a checks-and-balances form of government. For example, there are definitely many high-profile missions that require a degree of secrecy. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect the President to fully disclose in front of Congress what he intends to do. Congress cannot usually be fully informed, yet they are, in the end, the deciding group for the President’s military actions. Along the same line, the input of “The People” should be viewed with respect to the level of secrecy that must be maintained in military missions. The general public is not well-informed enough to be an influential factor in the Commander In Chief’s decisions. In regards to the troops in Uganda, however, public opinion should be taken into account; there are two reasonable sides to the controversy, and the President should be required to listen to what the public has to say. Overall, though, citizens need to put more trust in the President’s ability to handle his role as chief law enforcement; after all, they get to choose who becomes the next Commander In Chief. That being said, another situation can arise that again demonstrates the imbalanced power distribution provided by the War Powers Act. After 9/11, Congress granted President Bush specific statutory authorization to invade Afghanistan and combat terrorism, provided he reports to Congress every 60 days. In doing so, Congress essentially handed over all the war powers to the Commander In Chief. Because of this, the President himself is allowed to decide when, where, and how long to deploy troops in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the other side of the spectrum; however, it is not even close to the balance that is needed between the executive and legislative branches. Two extremes should not “average out” to represent evenly distributed war powers. The United States needs to moderate this distribution from the start.
Alyssa
With regard to The War Powers Act, The president has the power to deploy armed forces but only with the consent of congress.
Therefore, the power for the most part is equally split between the legislative and executive branches with the legislative having the power to veto a deployment.
I think "The People" do not have much say, the only say they have is electing people to congress and electing the president. I feel they should probably be able to have more say and the President should take it into consideration.
Our current system for deciding when, where and how long to deploy the US armed forces seems pretty balanced. The president is made to ask congress for permission before he is able to act. Once congress gives the president the power, the president may have limitless power. The people, however, do not have enough input in this issue.
With regards to the War Powers Act, once there is a declaration of war, there is specific statutory authorization, or there is an attack on the United States, the president has a lot of power. This act limits the president’s power though by requiring a consultation providing reasons, a report, and at least once every six months a report back.
All of the presidents have been opposed to this act and there are ways to get around it. Congress has 60 days to respond and either approve the action, vote against it, or do nothing. If they do nothing, after an additional 30 days the troops must be out. However, the president may send troops on a special mission that will only take a day to complete and tell congress about it after it happened.
The people do not have enough input on this issue because if 80% of the population are against sending the troops somewhere, there is no way to stop the president from doing it anyways. By the time there are elections, it will already be done.
The current system for deciding when and where and for how long to deploy the armed forces is not balanced. I believe that because the congress can overrule the president. If the congress does not trust the President and his decision, they can change anything. For example if the president wants to take out troops for Iraq or Afghanistan and the congress thinks its right to leave them there, they can make them stay, even though the president is the commander-in-chief. The president became president to “rule” the United States so why not let him make the decisions. I believe that the people of the United States do not have enough input. The people, like me, do not know what happens around the world because it is so secretive. The President, I also believe, does not listen to people the way he should. He should visit places and ask people their options and should consider them to improve upon.
I think that decisions concerning the United States armed forces are fairly balanced between the executive and legislative branches depending on the situation. According to the Constitution, the president serves as Commander and Chief of the army, and Congress can declare war, maintain and raise an army, and determine military budget. Congress has more initial power than the president, but also has authority over deciding what the president can and cannot do. In 1941, Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war between the United States and Japan as a response to the bombing on Pearl Harbor. Congress proceeded to declare war and authorize the president to employ military and naval forces. In this case, power is moderately balanced because the legislative branch allowed the executive branch to gain more control. In 2002, President Bush was permitted by Congress to use armed forces and determine when and where to use them, but he had to report back to them every sixty days. For the most part, the legislative branch has a little more power than the executive. I don’t think that the people have enough input in determining when and where to use armed forces, and don’t really have a say in it. The government is who controls all of it.
Our current system for deciding when, where and for how long to deploy US armed forces fairly is by no means fair. First off the rights to commander in chief where given to the president who is the voted upon person to make decisions for the U.S.. We the people have put our faith in the president when it comes to him making good decisions. But as far as war goes, he has lost his say in things. He really doesn’t have much of a say in anything the military does with out the approval on congress. Yes congress should have a say in when and where war is being declared but they have more then just that. The have the over all ruling and ability to shut down a president campaign in other countries. This ability of congress to have full control over when and where war happens pretty much takes away and say the people have as we have no input at all. Although congress’s vote is heavily persuaded by what the American people think.
Overall, I believe that decisions concerning the United States army are not balanced between the executive and legislative branches. The constitution says that the president is commander-in-chief and congress can declare war, maintain and raise an army, and determine military budget. Congress does not follow this most of the time. If congress thinks that what the president is deciding isn’t the right decision, they can change it to what they think is best. The president was elected because Americans believed that he was the best choice to make decisions that would affect them and because congress can overrule the presidents decisions, it is not allowing him to do the job he was given. I believe that the president doesn’t listen to the peoples input the way he should. I think that the people of America only have input on who is elected president and into congress, and beyond that, the things they say don’t matter.
The War Powers Act does not distribute powers evenly between the executive and legislative branches. Originally designed to check the powers of the President in involving the U.S. in a conflict with foreign nations without Congress’s consent and better balancing the powers, the War Powers Act has actually tipped the scale more toward Congress and provided them with too much control over when, where and to what extent U.S. forces are deployed. The President is required to consult with Congress and be approved before he is allowed to send troops anywhere. This can be a problem when the issue regards a top secret mission that needs to be executed quickly and quietly such as was the case with the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Taking the time to inform Congress and risking exposure or denial could cause the U.S. to lose important strategic advantages. Congress is also given the power to overrule the President and demand that he remove troops deployed without its consent if it feels necessary. This kind of control seriously cripples the President’s abilities as Commander and Chief of the armed forces. Any move that he wants to make, such as bringing troops into or out of Afghanistan or Iraq, can be shut down or revoked by Congress if its members do not agree with the President’s decision. The President is completely at the whim of Congress under the War Powers Act if he wants to get anything done.
As far as the involvement of “the People” in military affairs, it is very limited. Aside from electing the President and Congress members, the voice of the people is not really heard during wartime in regard to military strategies. Of course the public’s opinion is always out there but it is up to the President and Congress to listen to the people and act accordingly. There is no direct way for the people to be heard and considered concerning military affairs. I think that the people should be given more of a role in this process and that their opinions should be heard as well.
Rachel Lenoir
The War Powers Act doesn’t give equal power between the executive and legislative branch. The War Powers Act is supposed to decide when it is appropriate to go to war and if the country should get involved. Congress limited the President’s duties as Commander and Chief to only respond to declarations of war, if there is a specific statutory authorization by Congress or if there is a direct attack on the US. If the President wanted to deploy troops in Afghanistan, and Uganda, he would have to consult with Congress for approval and wait for their decision to act. If they disagree with his judgement they would force the President to withdraw those troops. This is counter- productive and gives the President little room to fulfill his duty as Commander of the armed forces. It isn’t fair because if the President had to act quickly say for example like with the Osama Bin Ladin assassination operation, he wouldn’t have time to consult Congress first if he wanted to successfully complete the mission without it leaking out before. Congress has most of the power and say in these situations over the President’s Commander and Chief duties.
“The People” should have more involvement in the military affairs going on. Right now it seems that “the People” have little to no input on these issues. They only have a say in who is elected to congress or president. If their decisions fall flat there is no way for the people to play a role in fixing it. Although “the People” don’t have military experience or backgrounds it could help the president make a unanimous decision on how to go about these issues.
I believe that the current system for determining where, when, and for how long to deploy U.S. troops is well balanced. Although the War Powers Act took away some of the President’s powers with regards to the role as Commander in Chief, it balanced a scale that had been tilted towards the executive branch. Beginning with the fighting in Vietnam, and continuing to the fighting in the Iraq and Afghanistan today, U.S. Presidents had become way too comfortable in fighting an unofficial war. Congress (and not the President) was given the power to declare war to uphold the system of checks and balances. That way, a group of people and not just one person can control whether the United States declares war on another country. But by not bothering to declare war in places like Vietnam and Iraq, the Presidents have bypassed this step in the monitoring of power. By passing the War Powers Act, Congress is just taking back the power that was given to them through the Constitution.
I do not believe that the people have enough of a say in the way that the U.S. military is deployed. Sure, the people can elect who they choose to office, but there is no guarantee that the candidate will uphold campaign promises while actually in office. For example, President Obama while campaigning promised to remove all troops from Iraq. Since in office however, there has been a large discrepancy from his previous promises. Far from removing the troops from Iraq, Obama has also begun sending them into various other countries such as Libya and Afghanistan. Due to the large inconsistencies between what political candidates say while campaigning and what they actually do while in office, something that the public has no control over, the American people do not have enough input on these issues.
Catherine Dykty
The War Powers Act does not balance the decision for when, where and for how long to deploy US armed forces fairly between the executive and legislative branches. This gives the President full command over the military when Congress declares war, gives statutory authorization, or if there is an attack on the United States. The President is supposed to consult with Congress and report back to them. Technically, this seems to balance the power of the President. However, it is not hard for the President to get around. For example, he can send troops somewhere if he believes there is imminent danger and tell Congress about it after. The people have almost no input on these issues at all, except for in electing their leaders to handle military issues. I think the people should be able to voice their opinions, which they are able to do through their Congressmen and even through protests. However, I don’t think the people should have any real say in military issues because there are many things that the general public is not made aware of and the average person wouldn’t be able to make decisions without much of this knowledge.
I do not believe that The War Powers Act is fairly balanced between the executive and legislative branches. The current system is for deciding when, where, and for how long to deploy US armed forces is more controlled by Congress than by the President also known as the Commander in Chief. Although the president “leads the military” which is a statement made by the Founding Fathers, it seems in the big picture that Congress is leading it. The Congress has the ability to declare war and also not declare war if the President asks. Congress can also make the rules for the soldiers, and they can control the budget and finances of the whole entire military. Sometimes Presidents do have a lot of power over the armed forces but that depends on what the Congress wants. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan, Congress gave him tremendous power and let him take all measure needed. Whereas when Lyndon B. Johnson asked for support from Congress they gave it to him but only enough to take all necessary steps to stop the threat. Congress has the power to give the President as much power as they think is needed. In 1973 when The War Powers Act was going to be made less vague Congress decided to limit when a president can act but it also gave the president a little “wiggle room” because he may send troops to another country for a certain amount of days, but once that number is up he must remove his troops by Congress’ order.
I do not think “The People” have enough say because I feel like many people dislike the war we are currently in and if they had control would remove all troops. But because these people don’t have any say they are not able to do anything about it. The people have to trust that the President will keep the country safe and is doing everything he/she can to help and make the country better.
The current system for deciding when and where and for how long to deploy the armed forces is not balanced. I believe that the War Powers Act doesn’t give equal power between the executive and legislative branch. The War Powers Act is supposed to decide when it is appropriate to go to war and if the country should get involved. I think the big issue is how Congress can overrule the President. I find this a little outrageous because the President is the commander and chief, and the leader of our country; he should be able to make their own choice with out checking in with Congress. I think it’s pretty ridiculous that if the President wants to deploy troops, why should he have to ask congress first? We elected him has President; we should have faith in what he is planning to do. If Congress doesn’t agree with him sending troops to a certain place, he only has a certain amount of days to remove the troops. I definitely think the people should have more say. As a teenager, I would like to know what is actually going on in the wars. I feel like we don’t know as much as we should. I think if Congress or the President took other peoples opinions and ideas into consideration, then we would be able to solve most of these issues.
I think that our current system for deciding when, where and for how long to deploy US armed forces is unfairly balanced between the executive and legislative branch. When the President asks to take military action then Congress has 60 days to respond. Congress can approve the action (statutory authorization), vote against the authorization, or do nothing. If congress ignores that action for war, then after the 60 days are up there is 30 days to remove all troops. The President is allowed to send troops on a special mission that will only take a few days and then tell Congress about it after it happened. For example, when president Obama sent the troops on the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. Also, the President has to consult with Congress at least once every 6 months. I think that as Commander and Chief the president should have more power. The War Powers Act takes away this power from the President and Congress controls the decision if the US should take military action or not. I think that people have some input because Congress has to make a decision on what is best for the people but most of the people don’t agree with the decisions Congress makes.
I do not believe that our current system of deciding when, where and for how long US troops are deployed is fairly balanced between the executive and legislative branches. First off, in any situation Congress basically has the option to override any decision made by the President with a two-thirds vote. Also, the War Powers Act forces the President (the Commander-in-Chief) to let Congress know of his military decisions. These decisions can either be approved or disapproved by Congress. If Congress disapproves of the President’s decision, they have the power to remove troops from the area in which they were sent to within thirty days. Such an action would go against all the plans the President made while fulfilling his role as Commander-in-Chief. The President has a strategy for all these military affairs, and by being forced to consult Congress upon each military decision, the outcomes of his plans can become hindered. Congress also has the unique ability to actually formally declare war and decide upon the spending used in military involvements. These abilities limit a President in what he is able to do and what he is not able to do militarily. Because the people vote for the President, if his say is not being heard, then the people’s opinion isn’t really being heard either, because whoever votes for the President probably shares similar ideals about conflict with him as opposed to the opinions of Congress.
In my opinion, The War Powers Act fairly balances the power between the executive and legislative branches. It balances out the uneven power that the President previously had to waging unofficial wars, su as vietnam. Before the war powers act, the president only had to ask congress to declare war, or to supply funding. They weren't really required to inform congress, as they could get money from other places. This puts the country at danger of entering a highly unpopular conflict at the decision of just one person. The war powers act balances this out so that more people have a say. However, "The People" do not have much of a direct say. I personally do not believe they have enough input, and that people should be able to vote on major conflicts, like entering or exiting Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other conflicts that will have a large effect on America, the military, or funds.
I personally don’t believe that the issues in terms of war in our government are dealt with fairly. Too often, a decision to declare war with another country (or not even declare war simply just invade and occupy a country) is made on terms of falsified information. Example, when George Bush invaded Iraq. I believe that Dick Cheney and George Bush, along with other members of office deliberately misled the country in terms of their motives to invade Iraq. The country’s “decision” was based on the claim that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction; however the public was misinformed because Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of the motives of this war, the President of the United States at the time held too much power. Education and information should be given to the people; including the legislation. I believe that the War Powers Act is correct and relatively constitutional however I think that more rights should be given to Congress in terms of ending a war. The only power Congress has in terms of ending a war if its going horribly wrong is to cancel capital towards the troops. This hurts the troops, not the President and if the President is dead set on keeping the troops where they are, then there they will stay. One person who sits on a chair of decisions and inaction should not be affecting the millions of lives that are at stake during a war. I think that this policy is flawed and needs to be amended.
The current system for deciding when and where to deploy US soldiers is balanced. It reduces the strength of the Executive branch on its own, but the Legislative branch can give the Executive branch back its complete power when necessary. However, “the people” are not represented very well. The political officers have complete say over what happens and take no account for “the people’s” opinions. The only time that they get a say is when they are electing officials to represent them in office. Unfortunately, this is the trade off for the current balance in the government. The War Powers Act has a very important role in all of the current conflicts of the United States. In Uganda, for example, the President had to consult congress when he sent troops to defend against the rebel groups. Congress then has the ability to either revoke the decision or support it. If supported, the President can continue his actions but under any limitations set by congress. However, if the action is revoked, the President has 60 days to remove all troops from the Uganda conflict.
Our current system for deciding when, where, and for how long to deploy US armed forces is not fairly balanced between he executive and legislative branches. The people have nowhere near enough input. The War Powers Act puts no system in place for congress ending a conflict. The people's power is through their representatives, and if their representatives don't have the power than the people certainly don't. Our current conflicts are majorly executive concerns.
The War Powers Act has been opposed by many presidents who claim it is unconstitutional, mainly for the reason that the act limits the president's powers as commander in chief. Under the War Powers Act, the president must inform congress of any deployment of troops, and must receive permission to keep troops deployed. If congress does not grant the president permission, then all troops will be removed. Personally i do not find this act to convey a fair level of balance between the executive and legislative branch. The president's power is greatly reduced and despite past presidential efforts to veto the act, it was still passed and is prominant today.
The War Powers Act, is very strict, however has loop holes that allow presidents to escape restrictions that they would normally be burdened with. For example over the past few years President Obama has been approving Predator Drone strikes on enemy's of the United States and world wide enemies without congressional approval. He finds a way to do this by giving the command to hold a strike and then fulfilling his obligation to congress and telling them about the action after it has already taken place. Therefore in my opinion The War Powers Act, is strict and does limit the president's power as Commander-in-Chief, however there are always ways to find a loop hole in the "black and white" rules.
Kelly Gunneson
The War Powers Act defines the situations in which the US President can send troops to foreign nations without the approval of Congress. The act allows the President to deploy troops if the President feels that there will be hostile acts in a foreign nation. It allows for troops to be deployed for 60 days and can by extended by the President for an additional 30 days without Congress’s approval. The current system in the US for deciding when, where, and how long to deploy US armed forces is not fairly balanced between the executive and legislative branches. The current system in the US allows for Congress to overrule the decisions made by the President and make decisions without the approval of the President. This gives the legislative branch a lot of power while severely limiting the power of the executive branch.
“The People” do not have enough input in the current system for deciding when, where, and how long to deploy US armed forces. The President is an elected official who the people of the US voted to make the overall leader of the country. However, Congress is made up of a combination of elected officials from all of the US states. The Americans did not have a say in the election of all the members of Congress and cannot be sure that the officials they elected will have an effect on these decisions. Since Congress is given more power than the President, “The People” do not have the input on important decisions in the country. In current situations, “The People” do not have control as to when, where, and how long young men are deployed to foreign countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Uganda. The men sign up for the army and are then told where they are going. The people of the US do not have control over whether US troops are deployed overseas. “The People” have very little input on the world.
The War Powers act does not distribute war powers evenly. Congress literally has wayyy to much power. By passing act, Congress knew that the president was going to veto the bill. But its easy enough to all agree on over ruling the veto since it gives them lots of say over what they do during the war. Now, whenever time of war comes along, Congress basically controls the wars such as the war in Afghanistan. Although the president is Commander in Chief, he has approximately no power over his own army.
The War Powers Act was made to balance the power of the president as Commander and Chief, but what it has done is simply give control to congress. Congress limits the times the president can act as commander and chief to certain times.
The people have very little influence on this, because only the legislative and executive have the ability to choose to send armed forces. 'The People' pretty much have no say.
The War Powers Act was made to balance the power of the president as Commander and Chief, but what it has done is simply give control to congress. Congress limits the times the president can act as commander and chief to certain times.
The people have very little influence on this, because only the legislative and executive have the ability to choose to send armed forces. 'The People' pretty much have no say.
the war powers act does not balance power equally between branches. the president may be the commander and chief of the US armed forces but if he is not granted the premission from congress he cannot act with the amount of power as one would expect. everything has to go through congress first. our president should have the final say. how can a president make promises if congress has to grant him the ability to fulfil those promises or deny him the abiliy to fulfil those promises. the people have voted for the president. that is about all the say that the people have in current issues.
test
Post a Comment