He believes the founding fathers never envisioned to grant exclusive war powers to the president. If a president wants to go to war, he must get the approval of Congress as stated in the Constitution. He says the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally grant a military attack in a situation that does not
2. The president has negotiated an executive agreement with Caspiana. An executive agreement gives the president power to enter executive branch of the government into agreement with a foreign state without senate ratification. A challenge by a member of congress would not be successful. This is because such an act would be considered as an executive agreement and the president acted within his constitutional authority.
Executive Privilege: Confidential communications between the president and his advisers do not have to be disclosed. The justification for this practice has been the separation of powers and the need a president has for candid advice. During the Watergate Scandal, President Nixon refused to turn over tape recordings of White House conversations. The Supreme Court, ruling on executive privilege for the first time, held that there was a sound basis for the practice, particularly in military and diplomatic matters, but there was no immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. Impoundment of funds: From time to time presidents have refused to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Yes, the President has unilateral war powers in political reality (he does not have it according to the letter of the law). As Commander-In-Chief, the President can order troops into any incursion for any reason; this later can be reclassified as a Black Op and kept secret, presented to Congress as an Act of War, or labeled as 'Peacekeeping' or termed a 'Police Action'. The authority of this action can then be authorized via Executive Order or Signing Statement - and used to circumvent constitutional law, procedure, or the separation of powers. This is partially how George W. Bush has been getting around Congress. Since the troops have to go in first, all Congress can do is cut off the funding.
How do you think our rights were protected against tyranny by the Constitution? Tyranny is when one person is given all the power to control a country of a government in a dictator like manner. The Constitution guarded against tyranny in several ways, which were federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, big states vs. small states. The first guard against tyranny was Federalism, a system of government in which power is divided between a federal government and state government. The guard of federalism is shown one way in the Constitution when they set up the compound government to make sure that the federal government doesn’t get too much power.
• The Fed is a creature of Congress, and its structure can, and has in the past, been changed by Congress. Congress might use the threat of structural change to try to influence the Fed o Ex: Propose legislation that would force the Fed to submit budget request to Congress • The President appoints ALL members of the Board of Governors and the Chairman of the Board of Governors. But, once they are appointed the President has NO DIRECT INPUT ON DECISIONS. Although the President can make known through speeches and meetings with the Chairman or the Board of Governors his policy
The system of Checks and Balances In the United States there is a system designed to prevent one of the three branches from gaining too much power. This system is called checks and balances. Each branch has their own powers to check the other branches. The three branches are Legislative, Executive, and the judicial branch. The Legislative branch has the powers to make laws.
Basic Principles of the War Powers By Louis Fisher Article Review Abstract The article by Louis Fisher entitled Basic Principles of the War Powers examines the history and established regulation of war declaration under Article I of the United States Constitution. The framers of the Constitution of the United States specified that the executive power of war would be transferred to Congress as a measure to prevent the establishment of a monarchy form of government. After World War II, the power of Congress to grant war powers to the President has appeared circumvented because of conflicts in Korea and Vietnam without specific approval from Congress. The article by Louis Fisher outlines the power vested in Congress to grant war
Furthermore, neither the Prime Minister, nor the cabinet signs a bill once it has been passed; rather the Governor General signs the bill. The parliamentary bill to law process is superior to that of the congressional process, because the American system, creates inefficiencies due to the all or nothing veto which the President has. Furthermore, this all or nothing veto system; creates what is called Omnibus legislation. Which is where several bills are bundled together; therefore, if the President really wants a bill to pass he or she may have to also accept a number of unrelated bills. Essentially, a President may be enacting a bill into a law, for which they know nothing about.
The constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and congress. It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution (Scholastic,