Your Home for Civics

Make sure to bookmark this page, as most of our class materials will be linked to this site.

Monday, March 5, 2012

The Executive Branch - The Commander in Chief and War Powers

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, and elsewhere.

Due Friday by 7:30am

Power Points
Seven Roles
Balance of Power

President Obama - March 6, 2012 Press Conference
Responsibilities of Commander in Chief

32 comments:

Drew Henderson said...

The system that we have in our country regarding the power and role of the president in times of war is organized well. Both the executive and legislative branches of the government are involved and each has there own role. In the current conflicts that America is involved in, the president is able to have covert operations before asking congress for permission. This power allows these operations to take place with success. No president wants to go to war, but does only what is necessary to maintain peace. Congress having the power to declare war is important so that the role does not fall on one single person. The general population would not be able to make the decision to go to war, or they would make it too hastily without enough information. The president has enough power to do what he needs to do in order to make sure the country is safe without having complete control.

Eric Chen said...

I feel that the executive branch has a bit too much power in launching wars, etc. The ability to send troops into an area and keep them there for up to 90 days, as per the War Powers Act, is too much for one person. Used responsibly it can be good, but it effectively gives one man the power to start a war if he wanted. Sure, he can only keep them there for 90 days, but if the aggression causes the country we attacked to declare war on us, then suddenly the president can mobilize even more troops. While we hope our elected president is a responsible and good one, there still remains risk in our current system in my opinion. Although, once a war has been started, I feel that Congress and the President have a fair share of power, as one determines action and one determines funding, which is what is happening in both Afghanistan and Iraq, where Congress and president must agree to keep the war going or end it.

However, I do not feel the people have truly enough say. Yes, they can always vote them out of office, but that oftens occurs years after the fact and people have short memories.

Alex Bauer said...

The system we currently have in place does not balance the power evenly between the executive and legislative branches. I feel that the War Powers Act gives more power to the President than it does Congress. While Congress has to approve any military action taken by the President, the President has a 90 day window to do what he wants and once the President has Congress's approval he can do whatever he wants and only has to update Congress from time to time. Applying the War Powers Act to the conflict in Iraq the President recieved Congressional authorization of force and now has the free will to do what he wants with the troops because the Act gives no guidelines for after deployment. The same concept applies in regaurding Afghanistan.
I do not believe that the people have enough input in military matters. The opinion of the American citizens is not considered in the War Powers Act or in any thought of military movement.

Alex Vendetto said...

I think that the power for war time decisions in our country is balanced well. Both the executive and legislative branches of the government have their own decisions regarding our countries involvement in the war. The legislative has the full power to wage war when they feel it is necessary which is rightfully theirs with the issue of war being such an important topic. It should not have to rest on one person unless absolutely necessary which is how it is for our country. The President on the other hand has the power he needs to be able to act quickly. For example, when he sent Navy SEALs into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. This is a power that should be granted to the President only. A decision such as that needed to be made quickly. If Congress had that decision there would be a debate and the window of time to find him and kill him would have been significantly smaller. I also feel that the public would not be able to make a decison on war because they would lack the knowledge that our countries leaders have that is confidential.

Jessica Liu said...

In general, I feel like a lot of people, myself included don't know enough about the complexity of political relationships to make an informed decision about whether or not we should go to war. A majority of the population doesn't know much about economics and how it will affect not only our country but others as well; therefore I think that the overall input of the people is questionable when it comes to war. Conflicts among our nation and others are heavy topics and should be dealt with by the legislative and executive branches.
The balance of power between the executive and legislative branch are fair. I think that decisions about official wars should be discussed between both branches and should not only be a decision made by the president. Under high priority operations and certain circumstances, for example the killing of Osama Bin Laden I believe that President Obama did not need to go in session with Congress to discuss the details of the mission; which is in agreement with the War Powers Act (send troops for up to 90 days in a location). However, the fact that the president can start an unofficial war without congress's approval and can send troops away for 90 days is scaring because a lot can happen in a quarter of a year.

Elena manke said...

I believe the power given to the legislative and executive branch is balanced pretty equally and is organized well in our government. I believe this because even though each branch has their own responsibilities, freedoms, and limitations it balances well between each other and allows both branches the opportunities to act and approach the issues the way they believe will benefit the country the most successfully, while stopping them from abusing the power. For example, if the president believes that war must be declared as soon as possibly, he has the ability to set action, yet is only allowed to have it last 90 days without the consent of the congress. The congress has the real ability to actually declare war and although this may seem odd because the president always seems to be the one with the highest power, the input and different opinions of many people in congress reassures that such difficult, decision that impacts the country as a whole can be made most successfully and without the pressure of one man's decision. The system of which the congress and president follow when declaring war is the best system of which both the president and congress are allowed input and also the best system to reassure the best outcome for the United States as a whole. The congress offers extra input and the president is allowed the right amount of decision making to make sure he isn't abusing, or put under a situation where the country would believe he was the blame for failure.

Jeff Morgan said...

The current system in which we live, some can argue that "The People" don't have a fair enough say. I believe that is untrue based on the situation regarding the War Power's Act (resolution) and the troops in Iraq. The situation in Iraq was. The people of the legislative branch and the executive branch certainly have an equal amount of say with one another. An example of this act regarding both branches can be shown in the Iraq ordeal. Basically, the resolution states that congress has the right to remove troops if war hasn't been declared. There has been no declared wars since World War II, and the troops in Iraq at the time were based on international policy. While at the time the United States believed that Iraq was hiding "weapons of mass destruction". Although this was later proved as not true, it was necessary to be there for the safety of the U.S. citizens against weapons of mass destruction. Finally, since war never declared Congress had the ability to remove troops any time. This can show how the United States relations in Iraq was equally balanced through both branches.

Josh Skydel said...

I think that, while the current balance of war powers may have some issues, it is effective in most situations. Some military operations, such as the SEAL teams that were deployed to kill Osama bin Laden and rescue hostages, have very brief windows of opportunity that demand snap decisions, and would never work if Congress had to vote beforehand. At the same time, we have seen firsthand the devastating effects of political stagnation; giving the President the ability to engage in combat for 60 days is an effective way to work around the polarized paralysis that Congress can fall into, and forces lawmakers to come together and create a unified plan of action. For instance, Obama's decision to enter into the Libyan conflict, and remain past 60 days without authorization, would never have come about if left up to Congress; even though he received a rebuke from a Republican-controlled House that is constantly gunning for his head, Obama made a definitive move that forced its way past the tensely partisan mood of Congress. Thus, the Presidential powers bestowed by the War Powers Act are incredibly useful for getting quick decisions and breaking up the squabbling that might otherwise prevent any and all action from occurring. Meanwhile, it is also prevents President’s from carrying on actions longer than necessary; when the tide of Congress changes to reflect voters’ feelings on the given war, the legislators hold the power to withdraw troops, and end the conflict. Overall, I believe this to be a pretty good compromise between executive and legislative power.
In addition, I think that "The People" have as much say in the matter of war as they could ever realistically have; the House holds elections every two years, and serves as the most rapidly-effected branch of government when it comes to the political climate. It would be unrealistic to hold national referendums whenever military action is brought up; instead, having the President available for quick decisions, and the House and Senate to further deliberate the matter before committing to lengthy engagements, is as good of a system as we will ever get.

TDupont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TDupont said...

Yes, since the passing of the War Powers Act in 1973, the balance of power between the Commander In Chief and Congress is weighed evenly because they each hold specific checks over one another to ensure the most just and constitutional way of deploying our armed forces is utilized. However, in my opinion, the only reason the balance of power is somewhat of a median between the executive and legislative branches is because while the President truly holds all the power regarding the use of the military in the short term, Congress plays the role of a spook story told to the President late every night to make sure that in that short span of time in which he is making a swift military decision, he is making a necessary choice in which the American people would support. The WPA states that the president in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing armed forces. Taking into account virtually every single covert operation since the passing of the WPA, there has been a miniscule amount of instances in which the President had the desire or even clearance to brief Congress on the top secret military operation. Obama only announced the mission of taking out Osama Bin-Laden after it was already done, after the only things from America that were still in the vicinity of Osama’s hideout were a piece of a helicopter tail and bullet holes. The President did not brief Congress before hand because that would most likely compromise the entire operation. However, Obama did take into account what would happen if the mission failed, what Congress would do about it, and how the American people would feel. This is the check that Congress ultimately holds over the Commander in Chief, their ability to bring down consequences right on Obama’s and every other President’s head is their say in what military action should be conducted. The War Powers Act main provisions say that the President can only use armed forces for three reasons, 1. Declaration of war. 2. Specific statutory authorization from Congress 3. A national emergency occurs. Congress hasn’t declared war since WWII. We cannot declare war in our current military operations because who are we fighting? We aren’t fighting a recognizable country or any piece of land with borders and a flag, a member of Al-Qaeda could be your white neighbor sitting in the living room in the house across from yours. “Specific statutory authorization from Congress” means virtually the same thing. And of course we are going to take military action when a direct threat is put on U.S. soil. These “guidelines” set by Congress bar no influence pertaining to the short term decisions made by the Commander in Chief and his ability to conduct our military forces after war is started. However, the balance of power is even between the President and Congress because they can disallow his actions after sixty days, cut funding for the military, and ultimately decide what our armed forces do in the long run. Furthermore, the people do have enough input regarding what forceful actions are made because they are the ones directly voting for the people that make these decisions. We vote for the President that we believe will make the best decisions in these instances, and we also vote for the people who will support or not allow his actions.boom roasted.

Savannah Henderson said...

Our country's current system regarding military action gives too much power to the executive branch under the War Powers Act. One man has the ability to deploy troops for up to 90 days without the consent of Congress. This is very risky and can lead to major consequences for our country, and initiate a war that would cause more troops to be needed. Also, once the president receives permission to continue military action, he does not have to update congress regularly. Leaving them out of whatever he is conducting within the military.

However, once military action has been taken, and troops are deployed, the power of congress becomes more significant. They control the funding of the war, while the president controls the actual movement of troops to certain areas. This is how both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been carried out, involving both the president and congress during the actual war.

Dan Lee said...

I think the power of the executive branch and legislative branch is equally distributed in deploying U.S armed forces. The legislative branch and executive branch have their independent responsibility or role when government makes decision about U.S involvement in war. Equally assigned power between two branches contributes to the fairness in launching war. President has his or her own power to act without consent of Congress. For the operation that needs to be progressed quickly and covertly, President is able to directly make decision without approration of the Congress because the plan might by delayed if Congress has splited view about the operation. For instance, a military action to kill Osama Bin Laden was case that War Power Act which allow Presient send troops up to 90 days in any location. Obama sent Navy SEALS to Pakistan without Congress' action. I think the public would not be able to make a decision on war because government often keeps significant information which related to war confidential.

SummerSkye94 said...

With the president not able to declare war on his own works, because then only congress can actually declare war. The exception being that the president can send troops out for 90 days at the most and with that, they have a lot of time they can do what they need to in. I think that's giving the president a lot of leeway when it comes to sending out troops, the president shouldn't have that unless it's a real emergency that we need to have troops move or sent somewhere. Congress is good to have the declaration of war so we aren't going from country to country taking over or just fighting and that the president can't make that decision.

Chelsea M said...

With the president not able to declare war on his own works, because then only congress can actually declare war. The exception being that the president can send troops out for 90 days at the most and with that, they have a lot of time they can do what they need to in. I think that's giving the president a lot of leeway when it comes to sending out troops, the president shouldn't have that unless it's a real emergency that we need to have troops move or sent somewhere. Congress is good to have the declaration of war so we aren't going from country to country taking over or just fighting and that the president can't make that decision.

Dylan Breen said...

When it comes to balancing the power of the President with Congress I think that everything is pretty fairly balanced. Although there is a little more wiggle room for the president if he does decide to deploy our troops, Congress can still repeal his decision in a decently short period of time. When it comes the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan I think that Congress should have a little more say since we have been in the conflict for almost three times the amount of time we spent in WWII.

Brett Casey said...

I feel that our system of government that we currently have does not balance the power evenly. I feel that the executive branch has a little too much control over the troops and i feel that they need to let the legislative branch weigh in more on major decisions such as going to war etc. I understand that both branches have their own role in the government, but when it comes to making major decisions i feel that there needs to be more equal input from both sides in making that decision. I think that some of the acts and laws such as the war powers act, may aid in giving the executive branch more power because it allows them to send troops anywhere for a 90 day term. I feel that is a big responsibility for one branch to handle.

Ryan Stanek said...

I feel like our country's system of balancing the roles and powers regarding the troops is balanced out pretty fairly. The legislative and executive branches of our government are always involved and are responsible for different roles when called upon. The president is also allowed to go into operations without notifying congress. This is very important and should stay legal. The secrecy of these operations is the main reason why they are able to work successfully without people knowing. The more people that are aware of secret operations, the more likely it is for the public and other nations to find out and take action. Congress's power to declare war is a very good thing, so the choices of our nation are not left in the hands of one person, but in the hands of many individuals. Congress is a very smart and skilled group of people who will definitely make the right decision for our country when it comes to war. The president has plenty of power, and the rest is equally distributed throughout Washington, D.C.

Ryan Stanek said...

I feel like our country's system of balancing the roles and powers regarding the troops is balanced out pretty fairly. The legislative and executive branches of our government are always involved and are responsible for different roles when called upon. The president is also allowed to go into operations without notifying congress. This is very important and should stay legal. The secrecy of these operations is the main reason why they are able to work successfully without people knowing. The more people that are aware of secret operations, the more likely it is for the public and other nations to find out and take action. Congress's power to declare war is a very good thing, so the choices of our nation are not left in the hands of one person, but in the hands of many individuals. Congress is a very smart and skilled group of people who will definitely make the right decision for our country when it comes to war. The president has plenty of power, and the rest is equally distributed throughout Washington, D.C.

Nick Perdion said...

The powers of the executive and legislative branches over the military are well balanced and achieve heir own specific goals quickly and effectively. Congress has the power to officially declare war, while the president can make special forces decisions when he feels necessary. If the president had to wait for congressional approval on all of these decisions, the opportunity to achieve some of these military successes would be gone. Missions like that of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden were briefly presented and needed to be acted upon without hesitation. As far as the role of the general public goes, they elected both congress and the president either directly or indirectly and have this given their opinion. It is now the responsibility of the elected officials to do their jobs.

D.Gomes said...

I feel that the system we currently have in place is fairly balanced between the executive and legislative branches. In our government we have a fair system of checks and balances. No one branch of government has total control over when, where and for how long to deploy US armed forces. Both the executive and legislative branches of the government make there own decisions regarding our countries involvement in the war. While or government is balance I feel that "The People" dont really have much say as they should in these decisions and its really left up to the government.

Unknown said...

I believe that the current system for deploying US troops is very reasonable. For our country’s safety and our troops safety it is important to not allow just a single man to decide were troops be deployed for a long period of time. It is very important that congress, more then just the president have a say and can come to an agreement to where troops are being held.

The Ninety-day policy is also important. Though I am not in the military I think this is a fair and necessary addition. The president is the decision maker of the US. If a time ever comes were military presence is needed right away the president should have the right to deploy troops with out discussion. It is better to take action, then sit at discuss. Rather then talk things over and have it being too late.

Nick D'Annolfo said...

I think that the balance of power should be in the hands of the President at all times. It is the responsibility of the President to be Commander in Chief and positioning the troops are part of that power.
The War Powers Act states that the President has to go through Congress in order to station troops unless there are other immediate circumstances. I believe that the President shouldn't have to do this and it should be his power to station the troops where he wants. With this does come a lot of trust, however, I think that the President would have enough sense to talk about it with military leaders and other cabinet members before making any rash decisions. For example, if President Obama wanted to put more troops in Afghanistan right now, I believe he should have the power to do so without asking Congress. Even though Congress was trying to balance things out with this act, I think that they are only taking away power that the President is entitled to and creating more power for themselves.

Davana said...

I think our current system balances the power pretty well. It's good that the War Powers Act allows for the President to deploy troops without consulting Congress beforehand every single time: keeping things on the down-low allowed for operations like killing Osama to be successful. But, the 60 day limit prevents the President from getting carried away with a war if no one else in the country approves of it. I don't think "The People" should have much input in declaring war at all, they simply don't know enough about any given situation to make a good judgement. The general populous gets a lot of media propaganda but doesn't get enough information to make a good decision if they had to take a vote. The person with the most information, responsibility, and accountability is the Commander in Chief, the President, which is why he should have the most power in making decisions about war. If anyone should have more say in declarations of war, I think it should be the military. Soldiers in Afghanistan have said that they don't think the conflict is going to be successful in reforming the country, and yet their comrades are dying every day for a country that doesn't even want the soldiers there. It just doesn't seem right that a bunch of well-dressed congressmen who live in DC should have more of a say in declaring war than the soldiers on the front line doing the actual fighting.

Hannah Purtell said...

I think that the system currently in place for deploying troops balances power fairly evenly through the executive and legislative branch. The concept of declaring war and sending our country’s young men and women out onto the battlefield is not a topic to be taken lightly, and it is clear that both the President and Congress bear the weight of that tremendous responsibility. I think that it is essential that the War Powers Act allows the President a little room to maneuver if a situation arises in which troops would need to be called in and act quickly and secretly. For example, in top-secret missions such as the capture of Osama Bin Laden, it was of the utmost importance that the President acted swiftly, without consulting Congress, to send in troops directly to where the terrorist leader was hiding and complete the mission clandestinely. If the President had been forced to inform Congress of this secret military operation, it would not be secret anymore; letting too many people know about the mission would have foiled the goals of the military and the President. However, it is a little unnerving that a President could send troops anywhere and engage our country in military combat for up to 90 days without a second thought. This system forces the country to put their trust into one individual and have faith that that individual will not be careless or rash, but rather carefully consider his options and lead us through these situations.
I think that “the People” have as much power as they would ever be able to hold in the deployment of troops. They possess the ability to directly elect their representatives in Congress, as well as the President, though in a more indirect process. Other than that, they would never realistically be able to hold any more power in these matters, as too many conflicting opinions creates even more problems for our military and troops.

Emily Dooley said...

When war was declared in such places, like Iraq and Afghanistan, the government approached the declaration of war within the lines of the War Powers Act. The President got consent from congress, allowing this declaration.
When declaring war, I think both the executive and legislative branches have an equal say regarding this matter. Both branches must agree when declaring war. Throughout the war, the President must report to congress about what is going on with the war; such as, casualties, weapons, controlling powers, etc. Also, congress gets to say if they think the war should end and if the President should pull the troops out. The President and congress must agree throughout this whole process.
Lastly, I think the people do have enough input in what the government should do about war. The people have the right to call, contact, and email their state representatives and notify them about what their opinion is regarding the issue. Also, the people have the right to contact the people in power in the White House as well. As the President, his/her job is to listen to the people because that is who elected him/her. If they want to be re-elected, they should do what is right for the country, what the people of the United States want. The final decision won’t make everyone happy, but everyone has the right to let their opinion be known.

Bgallo said...

The current system in our country regarding deploying the armed forces has its high points but its flaws as well. What I mean is that the laws stated in the War Powers Act are set up in order to control the power that is given to the President himself by giving Congress the power to make the final say in the decisions. This is theoretically a perfect system and idea, but there are flaws. The president can send in US armed forces without consulting Congress first and then has 90 days to withdraw those troops, pending the decision made by Congress. This appears to be a major flaw because it seems that the president basically can do whatever he wants in terms of the armed forces as long as it only takes 90 days in total. In regard to the arguments about whether or not "The People" have enough say in this process, I would say that very little decision making privileges about this topic should be given to "The People". This is because except for a select few people, the general population does not have nearly enough information to be able to make a reasonable decision, and these decisions should be left to the men and women whose jobs are specifically to make decisions like that. The general populations role in war decisions should be only to back the soldiers mentally and in advertisement so that everyone is aware and at least partially notified. Overall I believe that the system we now have is not perfect, but in order for someone else to introduce a new system it could not be equal or worse than the current one in its flaws. It's doubtful that is going to happen and I don't believe it would be necessary because as it is now has the qualities to create fair situations for the United States.

Christine Acurantes said...

I think that the executive and legislative branches' powers over the US Army are fairly balanced because one can't succeed without the other. Because the Congress provides for the Army, the President can't really order his troops to attack; and because the President is the commander-in-chief of the US Army, nothing will be done unless the President orders something. The two just need to communicate more in order to reach an understanding or mutual compromise because they really can't disagree on this big a deal because it's human lives they're dealing with. When President Obama ordered his troops to attack Libya without even consulting the Congress to supply, it was selfish on his part because he wasn't the one suffering in the battlefield. It's understandable that sometimes certain decisions need to be acted upon quick, but this one isn't something that shouldn't be done cautiously.

Arber Gashi said...

I think that the war powers between executive and legislative branches are not fair balanced.
The President as the commander in chief is empowered to wage wars, but in same time the Congress has the the power to declare wars and fund them. In a case of war the president can send the troops, but only with an authorization from the Congress (There is a 90 days window that the president can just act on his own)
Congress can stop the President only by passing a law that commands him to do so.In this case the President has a right of veto, and as long as the president can get the 34 senators to back him ( which he can for sure) he will still "win" even though the 501 members of congress oppose.
All in all the President has more abilities to maintain support for a military mission

Carlos Orellana said...

I believe that based on what has been going on lately with war that everything is equal between the executive and legislative branches. There are times when the president's power can come to be a bit higher at times but at the end of the day there would still need to be some sort of an agreement. An example of that would be the president wanting to send troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. But in my opinion, there should be equal decision power between the two branches when it comes to making theses types of decision. When it comes to war, they need to come together and really think about what they should do since we have been in a conflict for a long period of time.

Nick G said...

The current system regarding the power of the president in times of war may not seem like it is that sensible to some people, but obviously it is working. The current system should not be changed because if it has worked up until now why change it. If the president had to ask congress for permission to run covert operations, they would not be covert anymore. any time a major decision is being made in regards to war, the media finds out about it almost instantly. The current system that is in place in regards to war should stay in place as not to potentially mess up the wars that we are in now.

Rachael DeLuca said...

I think that our system is overall decent with some flaws in it. In any system there are issues with it but in general it works. One issue is that the people do not have enough input in any decisions what so ever. Since both executive and legislative branches make the decisions there isn’t any room for us to have an input. When the President has specific input it is a good idea to converse with Congress. However, it is also a good thing when the President can make his own decision and tell Congress after. We do have a slight input after all since we did elect the president ,but for all the people who didn’t vote for him do not have a say in judgment when deciding to deploy US troops.

Element said...

I believe that the current system of the War Powers Act is efficient and balanced. By imposing the 90 day limit, the War Powers Act effectively limits the President’s power. At the same time, the President can send the military anywhere without Congress’s approval. This is important, because the President will be able to send small forces to settle problems, such as the high priority, special operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The President cannot abuse this power, since Congress can always stop him within 90 days, which will prevent the country from being dragged into a long war. With this system, the tension between the President and Congress allow for the checks and balances that are required to maintain a stable government.

The people of the US do not have enough say in the government in terms of wars. However, I think it is fine. Most people are not educated and know the latest information about a conflict, so they should not be a part of it. There might also be sensitive information that should not be released to the public. I think it is enough for the President and his advisors to make the decisions, since they are probably the most qualified and will make better decisions than the people. If many people do not like the decision, they can always stage protests or threaten to vote for another presidential candidate.