ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union
Answer:
"Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power. Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I. A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances. The definition does not intrude on any presidential prerogative. The mechanisms chosen by Congress to enforce the provisions of the Resolution were reasonable in 1973 and, although matters have been complicated by the United States Supreme Court's decision late last Term in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, those mechanisms remain reasonable today."
Explanation:
Answer:
the legislative branch makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies.
Answer:
none of the above
Explanation:
During closing arguments, both parties involved in the case are given between 20 – 60 minutes to come up and forceful argue whatever cases they have. They use this opportunity to see if they can persuade the jury that their opponent in the case is either liable or they themselves are should not be liable.
This argument is not presented by the judge nor by the plaintiff’s attorney only, rather by both parties. After the closing argument, then the jury instructions by the judge follow, the arguments in itself are not part of the instructions made by the jury.