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
Can someone help me and fast
Nookie1986 [14]
All of them were neutral
3 0
3 years ago
Why does Jackson think his policy is kind and generous? (need three)
Ivan

Answer: because they are 'kindly' offering him a new home and to pay all of the expenses of his whole settlement.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
All of the following statements about the map above are FALSE except: A. There is no population decline shown on the map. B. Ten
Gnom [1K]

Answer:

C. This map represents population change for the United States and Puerto Rico from July 1, 2008 to July 1, 2009.

"States" as used in the map is referring to United States.

Explanation:

From the options given, option C is the correct answer. This is because it is clearly stated on the heading of the map.

Option A is false because in the map, there is population decrease.

Option B is false because California and Texas had a +200,000 population increase.

Option D is false because every state on the map either have an increase or decrease in population.

Therefore, Option C is the correct answer from the available options.

7 0
3 years ago
How was the issue ultimately resolved? Louisiana Purchase
DedPeter [7]

Answer:

This will be my last answer for now, but I'm positive the Louisiana Purchase occured between France and the US during Jefferson's Presidency. It was a really good deal for the US, because it was a lot of land for little money. However, envoys under Jefferson negotiated the deal without his direct approval, meaning Jefferson was forced to push for ratification.

6 0
3 years ago
How was the Iriquouis Environment different than the Anasazi. Be sure to quickly explain with an example.
galina1969 [7]

Answer:

For most of the long span of time the Anasazi occupied the region now known as the Four Corners, they lived in the open or in easily accessible sites within canyons. But about 1250, many of the people began constructing settlements high in the cliffs—settlements that offered defense and protection

longhouses

The Iroquois people lived in longhouses. Longhouses were large wood-frame buildings covered with sheets of elm bark. The Iroquois of today live in modern houses and apartment buildings

Etymology: French, from Algonquian , literally, 'real adders'. Iroquoisnoun. A person belonging to one of these tribes. Etymology: French, from Algonquian , literally, 'real adders'

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following examples could be used in support of the claim that nationalism contributed to World War I?
    5·2 answers
  • 3. What was the role of slavery in African colonies?
    8·2 answers
  • The systematic killing of a people group by another is called _____.
    6·1 answer
  • Benito Mussolini was also known as Il ______________.
    11·1 answer
  • What is a "war hawk"? A. a person who protests a war B. a person who rallies for going to war C. a person who analyzes the effec
    9·1 answer
  • Which is the BEST description of the purpose of political cartoons? A. they simplify complex political documents by showing them
    13·2 answers
  • In which city is was urbanization connected to European colonialism
    15·2 answers
  • How did hamilton win the supoport of the south?
    12·2 answers
  • E pluribus unum is our national motto. It means "out of many, one". How does this motto relate to the achievements of the Costit
    9·2 answers
  • How did loyalty to the city states divide greece?
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!