Yoo “argues that the language of the constitution, long-accepted precedents, and the practical need for a speedy action in emergencies all support broad executive power during war.”(Taking sides p73). Yoo describes that the constitution examines the two branches power- the president as Commander-in-chief and congress with control over funding and declaring war. The Framers made it this way to be more flexible and create a more deceive action instead of going through the legislative process. Yoo believes that the President has unilateral war powers based on what is written in the Constitution and does not need Congress approval Michael Cairo on the hand thinks different. He believes the founding fathers never envisioned to grant exclusive war powers to the president.
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
Does the President have unilateral war powers? The age old question is does the president have unilateral war powers? John C.Yoo, a professor at University of California Berkeley argues that the language of the constitution sates that the in a crisis situation to have speedy action, the president has the power to declare war to ensure the safety of America. Michael Cairo, from "The 'Imperial Presidency' argues that the founders never wanted the president to have all power. They wanted to have distributed power throughout each branch.
The separation of powers is quite pivotal for the US government otherwise there tends to be some corruption relevant to the extreme utilization of powers. Those two points of view are states by James Madison while planning to set up the Constitution of the national government, and those opinions are all crucial to the development of
The Federalists were usually characterized as loose constructionists, which meant they focused more on the intent of the constitution and its framers, and believed that changes were necessary for the development of the nation. Although Republicans and Federalists were characterized as having these particular views towards the enactment of the Constitution, when Jefferson and Madison served as Presidents during the beginning of the 19th century from 1800 to 1817, it was proven that even though they seemed to believe in their own views, in reality when time came, they started changing their beliefs and becoming both strict and loose constructionists for the good of the nation, which was strongly advocated by Henry Clay and his American System. The same would occur for the Federalists, so generally, each side did not accurately characterize itself during the early 19th century and proved each side had its similar interest when interpreting the Constitution. Before Jefferson became President in 1800, The Federalists dominated national politics for the first decade of America’s governmental history because of George Washington and John Adams favoring Federalist views. It was not until the
President Nixon started to present the idea that the federal government was too powerful, and that the states needed to have more power back and begin a form of decentralisation and a return of powers back to the states. He felt that the federal government should be small to promote self reliance and the American idea of 'rugged individualism'. As a reaction to creative federalism and the great society programme, he severely reduced aid to the states, and instead of issuing categorical grants, he would give states block grants, which would effectively strengthen the 10th amendment. This is one reason why federalism has changed since the 60s, because a new president had a different idea on how much the government should be intervening on state issues. Another reason why federalism changed since the 1960s is due to the fact that President Carter, a democrat president carried on Nixon's ideas of New Federalism.
After The World War 1 had ended America was finally beginning to return to normalcy. The idea of Isolationism and the outlaw of War with wall nations began to shape the foreign policy for the United States. Although the world was as peace during the 1920’s it was not soon enough that Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union would spark another World War. Due to Political, social and economic changes during 1920-1941 the foreign policy of the United States would dramatically change. Isolationism , the made idea in the early 1920’s was changed after the course of World War 2, and urge to engage in world affairs made America the leading power in the world.
military forces on alert and to authorize military force. In my opinion the role as the President of the United States and Commander and Chief is to protect the citizens of the country. There have been many times in the past that our President may have stepped out of line when it comes to certain rights or laws and they may have went around or bent them a little. I personally think It may not have been the best way to have gone about it but I know in times of panic rash decisions can be made. I also know that we need to eventually stop and think about what it is we are doing we need to hold ourselves to the standards we present and not just be all talk either.
Faced with all this various obstacles, there’s no way the President will ever become too powerful and thus pose a threat to democracy. The Madisonian system (separation of powers and checks and balances) is strong enough to check and prevent such tendencies. In my perspective, the President isn’t ‘strong enough’ to stand up to the diverse interests in the United States and that’s because the Senate overpowers him. Also because the process to get things done is extremely long, frustrating and never reasoned by the people. The President is a human being like you and I.
The Watergate Scandal In the Federalist Papers #51, President James Madison argues that separations of power are necessary because “men are not angels”. This separation between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches ensures that no one branch becomes too powerful, but with this separation ultimately problems are bound to occur. Over the history of the United States, many conflicts have arisen between the various branches over conflicting interests, with a notable conflict between the legislative and executive branches being the Watergate Scandal. This conflict, which took place during the Richard Nixon administration, resulted in the first resignation of a United States president in history. The Watergate was an American political scandal which occurred when Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, was running for reelection against his democratic rival, George Stanley McGovern.