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
Do you agree or disagree with Wilson's claim about the "recent course of the "Imperial
Margarita [4]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

I agree with President Wilson's claim about the "recent course of the "Imperial German Government." The evidence I can cite to support my position is the following.

United States President Woodrow Wilson had tried to stay away from the political issues of Europe, supporting the foreign policy of neutrality. However, due to recent events of that time, he had to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Germany because its actions represented a threat to the citizens of the United States. That is why he considered that the US had to enter World War 1. Incidents such as the interception of the Zimmerman telegraph in which Germany asked the help of Mexico and the sinking of the Lusitania ship, forced President Wilson to ask for a declaration of war.

6 0
3 years ago
Select the correct facts about Madagascar.
sergejj [24]

Answer:

the second two are correct

5 0
2 years ago
Which dynasty required tribute from other territories?<br> Sui<br> Song<br> Han<br> Tang
Novay_Z [31]

Explanation:

Han is your answer. it will come up Ming Dynasty ask another word for Ming Dynasty and then it will tell you your answer is Han.

3 0
3 years ago
According to nationalists, a nation-state’s government should be
Vanyuwa [196]

Answer:

<u>According </u>to nationalists, a nation-state’s government should be chosen by that nation-state.

Thus, the correct option is (D).

<u>Explanation</u>:

Nationalism makes people who are having a common identity to detach from the other groups. They thought that nationalism is very much needed in order to remove any oppresion caused by others. They desired to have their own state and they want the state itself to chose their own government. They didn't want others to get involved in their ruling.

It is often termed as collective egotism. It often unites people and create their own identity but eventually it leads to war and conflict with others. The most important types of nationalism are religious, cultural and ethnic nationalism. Nationalism often leads to destruction in the past days.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The Roman Army was staffed by professional, career soldiers. Do you believe that this gave the Romans a military advantage? Expl
solong [7]

The success of the Roman army was based around the facts that it had excellent organization, great leadership, good training, good equipment, and that is was only consisted of professionals.

The Roman army had only professional soldiers in it. Not everyone was able to become soldiers, as certain physical criteria had to be fulfilled. The ones that became soldiers had training everyday. Tactical training, one to one combat, formation combat etc.

That led to the Roman army to be very successful in its military campaigns, especially because very often it was coming upon poorly organized armies, where most of the soldiers were either part-time soldiers, or just ordinary villagers.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What early river civilization does the chart describe?
    13·1 answer
  • Why can crusaders be considered hypocrites
    7·1 answer
  • What did Abu Bakr do after Muhammad’s death?
    7·1 answer
  • HELP!!!!! Chfigkfygizycjdhgifyfkfykygkcjfufjfuducsufigfufufficcusjcjsudjcjdud
    5·1 answer
  • Why did early trade in Washington rely on shipping
    6·1 answer
  • The first Five-Year Plan, based on ____ principles, reshaped China’s economy.
    13·2 answers
  • Which of the following statements accurately summarizes the reasoning for the decision in Baker v. Carr (1962) ? * 2 points Beca
    9·1 answer
  • Which is an example of a renewable resource
    14·1 answer
  • Why is the sequence of monosaccharides important to the properties of a carbohydrate?
    15·1 answer
  • In the early 1930s, why did so many farmers lose their land? they paid off their mortgages too quickly, resulting in heavy bank
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!