1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
myrzilka [38]
3 years ago
10

Once oral arguments are concluded and a verdict has been reached, you are asked to write the opinion for one group of Supreme Co

urt justices: you can choose which side of the argument to support. Read this article that argues in support of Congress's position and this article that argues in support of the president's position. Using this data and the scenario discussed above, write a 250-word essay declaring whether or not the War Powers Act works within the constitutional authority of Congress. Cite evidence to support your claim, and use examples from the scenario to illustrate your points. Review the Process section below for help researching and writing your essay.
History
2 answers:
Anni [7]3 years ago
6 0

The War Powers Act does work with the constitutional authority of the Congress. The War Powers Act is a federal law intended to check the president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. That means the president can’t send the U.S. Armed Forces into action without notifying the Congress. The Congress would either have to give the president a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF)or a declaration of war by the United States. In the situation that we are talking about, the president didn’t notify the Congress that he was sending the U.S. Armed forces over to the Middle East. He said that it was no point of notifying the Congress because he was not trying to declare war on the country. He still didn’t get the authorization for military force to send the troops over there. So, in this case, I think the the court would side with the Congress, because the president basically disobeyed the whole War powers act and didn't consult the Congress about the decision.


Soloha48 [4]3 years ago
5 0

The power to wage war within the constitutional system of the United States is only one aspect of the tension between the President and Congress. Both fight to expand their influence on the political conduct of the country. In this matter, the Constitution is vague and its interpretation has caused some conflicts; however, the political regime that  she consecrates gives the President more expeditious mechanisms and flexibility to make their influence prevail in front of Congress.

The president of the United States "has the constitutional power not only to counterattack against any person, organization or State suspected of being involved in terrorist attacks against the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of hosting or supporting those organizations." It is a "constitutional power", which was "collected by Congress" as "inherent to the Executive" on September 14, 2001, just three days after the 9/11 attacks. This is possible without requesting authorization from the congress. As happened when Barak Obama, in March 2011, ordered to bomb Libya.

It is true that Section Eight of Article One of the Constitution specifies that the Congress (formed by the Senate and the House of Representatives) will have, among other powers, the "declare war (...) and adopt rules concerning to the capture of lands and waters ". But it is also true that the text does not specify what a "war" is. For this reason, some other conflicts are considered "military confrontations", but have been authorized by Congress, such as Vietnam, the Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq and the Afghanistan War.


You might be interested in
What did Athens use money from the Delian League for?
arlik [135]

Answer: Members were expected to give tribute to the treasury which was used to build & maintain the naval fleet led by Athens. Initially members swore to hold the same enemies and allies by taking an oath.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Under the articles of confederation, political power and authority ultimately rested with the ________.
Zina [86]
<span>Individual state governments</span>
4 0
3 years ago
Why did Antifederalists oppose Alexander Hamilton’s plan?
bija089 [108]
Antifederalists opposed Alexander Hamilton's plan because they felt that it threatened their individual freedoms.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which statement best describes how most people in West and East Florida felt about the American Revolution?
Annette [7]

Answer: They were loyal to the British crown.  

Explanation:

its c Edge my ps4 username is MrSkyz0_0

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Question 3 of 10
Anit [1.1K]
I think the answer B
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • In Federalist 39, Madison tries to explain what it means that we have “A National Government in a Federal System.” Discuss what
    8·1 answer
  • Examine this illustration titled “the sky is now her limit”. It was created in 1920, It was created in 1920, The year in which w
    8·1 answer
  • Why did native americans generally distrust the british?
    7·1 answer
  • What cause the Russian revolution?
    15·1 answer
  • What was the purpose of the battle of Jutland?
    6·1 answer
  • What have you learned about ancient Egyptian religious beliefs from the text and these documents
    8·1 answer
  • How was impact of beliefs and idea a issue of the past
    15·1 answer
  • Find the odd out and way nile Amazon Volga Yangtze Andes​
    12·1 answer
  • Why would one not be surprised to find similarities between Sikhism, Islam and Hinduism?
    8·1 answer
  • Which factor contributed to the United States having a more limited military commitment in the Persian Gulf War than It had in V
    15·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!