2091) Though, there could be some delegation within that matter to argue that the President does not have the full powers of war because they are not “implicitly delegated” by the Congress to the President. In response to this: this is where the AUMF gives the President the right to use the powers of war implied to him by Congress, through which he is allowed to do within the law of war. Behind this allegation of the Presidentʼs war powers based on Congress, the Judiciary and Political branches support this theory that in need of protecting the country from foreign lands, the President has the right to act with military force without consulting Congress at force, as long as it is within the laws of war. Bradley and Goldsmith go on to say “...in the absence of express congressional restriction, the only limitations on presidential power during wartime were the laws of war.” (Bradley & Goldsmith, pg. 2092) In the court case of Brown v. United States, Brown argued that the laws of war were broken when the President tried to take over some land that was under the ownership of the enemy forces after the War of 1812.
Most of congresses oversight comes from congressional committees as unlike in Britain congress cannot hold question time as the executive is not present in congress so it is only in committees that members of congress can directly question the executive. There is much evidence to suggest that congressional oversight is only effective when the controlling party in congress and the presidents party remain distinct due to that idea that when they are not, oversight and the scrutiny that comes parallel to it, would do the executive unnecessary harm, in the words of David Broder 'no Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration'. This argument is highlighted by the fact that almost all of the senates rejection of presidential appointments existed in a time when the presidents party did not control congress, for example, the democrat senate's rejection of George H W Bush's appointment of John Tower to secretary of defence and the republican senate's rejection of Clinton's nuclear test ban treaty. The most noticeable example however comes from George Bush JNR's time in office where for the majority of his first 6 years in power he held a republican congress. During this time of lapdog congress, congressional oversight was practically non existent with a measly 37
During the time the constitution was being written, the Founding Father used it as a way to protect our government so no foreign prince could buy his way into the presidency. But now the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminate that factor. Over 200 years have passed since the original drafting of the natural born citizen clause. During which technological innovations have made it possible for people to become more open about foreign policy or the vast diversity there is in the United
In Boumediene versus Bush case, the court voted that the detainees have the right to habeas corpus, because Cuba’s base is technically American territory. Chief Justice Roberts is against the majority vote. His thoughts are that the court is “overreaching” and fears that the decision made by non-political and non-accountable judges might strain the control of the nations on foreign policies. (Greenhouse, L., 2008) The role of the President as commander in chief is to put in force “laws passed by the Congress”. (Levin-Waldman, O.M., 2012, p.48) He also can do whatever he feels is needed to “protect and defend the Constitution”.
Presidents use their appointees to cement their legacy, trying to choose individuals who share their ideology. I know that has become a dirty world in how the government uses to interpret the law, but right now, there is a very bright line separating conservative and progressive issues. One should nominate someone who believes in the same causes he or she does. Choosing a nominee who is not, already a judge has the advantage of giving less fodder to the opposition, because she has no opinions available for scrutiny. On the other hand, she could turn out to be something other than the president expected.
The judicial branch has a non-partisan point of view to the Law. The judicial branch doesn’t side with the minority of the majority party because It bases it decision on what the constitution says and how it was intended when the Founding Fathers created it. Both majority and minority groups are looked as equals in the eyes of the judicial branch. In the middle of most and least democratic is the executive branch. The executive branch is vested in the President of the United States.
A state is closer in relationship to the U.S than a territory, but the federal government has more control its territories. State governments share power with the federal government and are allowed to create and enforce laws without approval from them. U.S. territories still have self-government, but they must abide by federal law and whatever laws they create themselves must first be approved by U.S. congress. Also, although we follow the United States and it leaders in office, territories are not allowed to vote. The U.S. many times ignores and leaves out its territories treating them as if they were a completely foreign
By creating a government divided into the presidential, legislative, and judicial branches meant that no one’s power could come into absolute power. There is however a downside to having three branches of government. If there is a democratic president and one of the branches is a republican run branch they may not agree on some of the same ideas. When we have different branches vetoing bills and not making them laws this in turn affects the citizens who may need the change. Checks and Balances The system of checks and balances is part of our constitution.
I believe that the sovereignty of this nation is at stake, and that the lack of resolve of many of the elected officials currently in power is disgraceful. There are a few notable exceptions. For example, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher from California in a staff editorial titled "Mission Creep: A House Bill to Allow the Military to be Used to Patrol the Border is Misguided and Dangerous" from the May 26, 1998 The Orange County Register, stated: "If nothing else, the primary goal of the federal government is to secure our nation's borders...If it takes military troops to secure our borders, then they should be permitted to do so. "(“Should the US military patrol the borders?”). Well said,
As it is a sensitive subject that could potentially alienate a whole sect of the electorate it is rarely mentioned and if taken action upon it is usually through the route of executive orders once the president is securely in office. This is shown by the Obama campaign. He rarely mentioned race based policies but after the 2014 mid terms he executed his immigration reform via the use of executive order. This means that the electorate are not particularly troubled by the issue of race because it is no longer important; and instead it is just something that the president decides to take a personal stance on in