1. Please review your notes from 553-560.
2. As you know President Obama committed troops to military action without a declaration of war or an authorization of use of military force. Read and take notes on these two editorials that address that controversy.
3. Explain your thoughtful reaction to each of the editorials and identify the one with which you agree.
4. What problems might result if that position is adopted? What historical example of these problems can you cite?
In his article “Obama Kills the War Powers Act” Rich Lowry argues that, by disregarding the War Powers Act in his policy towards Libya, Obama has essentially made the act meaningless. This is a good thing, he argues, because it is an inherent power of the President to “manage conflicts and use armed forces as needed” and thus the President should need any Congressional approval to send troops overseas.
ReplyDeleteConversely, a response to that article, Jeffrey Anderson argues that the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to raise troops and only allows the President to direct the troops once they are already in battle. He contends that contrary to the claim of Lowry and others, Congress’s power to declare war is not a formality and is the only legitimate legal method by which the country can engage in military hostilities.
I agree with Anderson that the President should most definitely need Congressional approval to send troops overseas. The military actions of a nation of over 300 million should not be beholden to the whims of one man. Though in recent times, Congress has certainly slowed down the governing process to a point where it is almost unmanageable, they are a pragmatically and constitutionally mandated check on the power of the President to wage war.
Historically, as in before the latter part of the 20th Century, Congress was the body that would declare war. Thus, when war was declared, it was only after a decisive majority of the country supported it or after there were no other options. Wars were less frequent and America was more successful in waging them. The counterargument could be that sometimes in times of war, it is necessary to have a strong leader, such as Lincoln in the Civil War or Roosevelt in World War II. However, those leaders both gained their additional powers after war had already been declared. Besides, the power to control troops after they had been mustered would still rest solely in the hand of the Commander-in-Chief.
In the current day, as America fights wars on three fronts, battles terrorism worldwide, and confronts countless other terminal domestic issues, it cannot afford to join wars without careful Congressional deliberation.
-Patrick Scott
Jeffrey Anderson argues that Obama's decision regarding the Libyan conflict represents a dangerous extension of his powers. While many argue that the War Powers Act, which Obama is seemingly ignoring, is unconstitutional and he therefore has the power to ignore it. However, Anderson argues also argues that the Founders did not intend for the president to wage war at will. The War Powers Act, he implies, is simply an formal law reflecting the Founder's opinions.
ReplyDeleteRich Lowry takes the opposing view. Lowry certainly admits that Obama is ignoring the Act more openly than most of his predecessors. However, he believes that the Act is unconstitutional. Ignoring the law is simply adhering to the Constitution. Lowry argues that the power to control funding should be enough of a check on the president's power for Congress.
I find Anderson's argument more convincing. The idea that one man has nearly unchecked power with regard to the military and waging war is ominous. Congress, which has a much larger group of elected officials and therefore entertains more varied views than the president, should be the determinative factor in deciding whether to wage war. The fact that Congress is generally slow to make decisions is absolutely evidence that the President should have the power to direct troops once committed, since time is of the essence. The decision to wage war, however, should not be hastily made nor should it be the decision of one person. Without the War Powers Act, Congress is limited to cutting spending. However, this is generally little more than a threat. To cut spending to troops risking their lives would reflect incredibly poorly on Congress, which also has political ambitions and must consider the public's reaction. Regardless of whether the public agreed with the war itself, cutting spending to troops would seem drastic and therefore is an almost useless threat.
There are certain problems that could arise from limiting the president's military power. This could limit the president's ability to launch sudden or surprising attacks. In addition, if the president was forced to withdraw troops after 60 days, after he had committed them, the withdrawal could be difficult as well as possibly damaging to the area where they had been deployed. Presidents who avoided combat during the World Wars may have caused the wars to be longer and more destructive, since America did not get involved sufficiently early. However, I believe that these problems could be avoided and the benefits of limiting presidential powers would surpass the dangers.
Nathan Posener
In his article "Obama Kills the War Powers Act", Rich Lowry argues that, in sending troops to Libya without Congressional support, Obama has effectively nullified the War Powers Act, rendering it meaningless. Lowry contends that Obama is in the right in ignoring the law, for "the president's inherent powers as commander in chief do not depend on affirmative acts of Congress. According to Lowry, Obama is, in fact, "paying a backhanded compliment to the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Anderson responds to Lowry's arguments in his article, "The President Should Decide How, Not Whether, to Wage War". Anderson points back to the positions of the Founders with respect to declarations of war, writing, "the American Founders' basic…division of war powers under the Constitution is that Congress is empowered to decide whether to engage in war, and the president is empowered to decide hot to carry out war once it has begun." Anderson decries Obama's use of military force in Libya for its lack of Congressional support. He would have wanted Obama to stick to the constitution by dispatching troops only after receiving formal Congressional approval.
I agree with Anderson's view, for the President alone should not have the power to make as momentous a decision as a declaration of war. Such a decision should be thoroughly discussed, as through a legislative body like Congress. One problem that might arise, however, is a significant slowing of the legislative process. This could result in a delay of military action when it is most needed. This problem was manifest the delay of President Franklin Roosevelt in entering into an alliance with England in World War II. Though some might deem this delay necessary, it was nonetheless caused by a disconnect between the President and Congress.
I agree with Anderson. Lowry, in opposing the War Powers Act, basically espouses giving the president the full power to declare war, which I think is quite foolish. War often involves putting thousands of lives at risk. The thought of one man deciding the fate of thousands of others, most of whom he knows nothing about, is frankly frightening. Additionally, declaring war is also, as Justice Joseph Story states, "subversive of the great commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests." Declaring war is too consequential a decision to be left to one man. Allowing congress to declare war subjects all war plans to intense scrutiny, which refines them and makes sure that nothing too radical is done. It also gives both parties a fair say. Lowry argues that Congress can still influence war decisions by cutting war funds, but he then admits it almost never does this.
ReplyDeleteAdopting my position would be a problem in urgent situations, where immediate military action was needed. Though Congress's scrutiny of potential war declarations is important, it can simply take too long in certain emergency situations. In 1999, Clinton acted in violation of the War Powers Act by declaring war in Kosovo against FR Yugoslavia, which was committing mass genocide. If Clinton had been restrained by the War Powers Act, Congress could have deliberated for weeks, while countless lives were lost overseas to genocide.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Obama Kills the War Powers Act,” argues that as Commander in Chief, the president should be able to direct our military force. Lowry does add, however, that Congress can restrict the president’s power by restricting funds.
ReplyDelete“The President Should Decide How, Not Whether, to Wage War,” takes a strong stance against President Obama’s actions in Libya. Anderson shoots down Lowry’s claim that Presidents should be able to start wars, by explaining it’s unconstitutional.
I believe the president should not be able to enter us in a war because it is such a large commitment for the entire country. I understand the example Anderson provided of President Reagan, and support the president’s power to control military actions in certain situations.
If presidents always had to go through Congress there would be much delay on issues that may be more urgent. While WWII was underway in Europe, Congress stalled Pres. Roosevelt’s wish to enter it because of its slow processes.
Max Novick
In “The President Should Decide…”, Anderson rebukes the hypothesis offered by Lowry that the President, and the president alone, should be the person to initiate armed conflicts involving the United States. Anderson cites military actions like the Korean War to show how the president should not be allowed to make unilateral decisions to declare war. Lowry, conversely, believes that Obama has put the final nail in the coffin of the War Powers Act and that it should be abolished. While Lowry makes a good point, I do not agree that the president should be the only person to hold power when deciding whether or not to go to war or initiate a military intervention. I believe that is unconstitutional, so I agree with Anderson when he says that congress should decide when to go to war, as it is an accurate representation of the sentiment of the American people and is not the will of a single person. Yes, going through congress could means weeks or months of inaction and political maneuvering, but that period of debate and strategizing could save countless American lives.
ReplyDeleteBen Magalaner
Both columnists agree that despite the current administration’s claims to the contrary, President Obama is violating the terms of the War Powers Act. They differ, however, in their opinion towards the action. Rich Lowry writes that “The War Powers Act is an excrescence on the American constitutional order that deserves to be the dead letter that President Obama is making it.” He argues that limiting executive power violates the Constitution, and suggests that Congress’ other checks on this power, like the appropriation of military funding, are adequate.
ReplyDeleteJeffery Anderson, on the other hand, argues that the intent of the founders was not to give the president absolute power to commit troops but to give him the power to manage a conflict begun by Congress. He cites Alexander Hamilton and the constitutional commentaries of Joseph Story in making this point.
I agree more closely with Anderson’s position. Since war affects the entire nation and all of the states, it makes more sense to have the representatives of the states collaborate on the decision rather than an executive decide unilaterally. Especially now, when the effects of a commitments to war on national economic health need to be carefully considered, it doesn’t make sense to concentrate power with an executive who may not have the resources to act in the best economic interests of the nation. For ideological conflicts, it is also important to avoid a war started on the grounds of an executive’s personal biases.
One possible problem with strictly enforcing the War Powers Act is the effect on the Constitution. It could lead to more extensions and limitations of constitutional powers. Also, consulting Congress can be a lengthy process, and could lead to harmful foreign policy delays. For example, with the military action against Osama Bin Laden, President Obama successfully carried out the operation without general knowledge and without the consent of Pakistan, which would have been impossible if he had to consult Congress. Anderson accounts for this, suggesting that the president can reasonably act unilaterally when a military action needs to be done quickly and in secret, but the distinction between a reasonable and unreasonable exercise of power may be unclear in practice.
The issue over who can wage war, Congress or the President, has plagued America since its beginnings. The constitution clearly states that Congress and Congress alone can declare war. The theory underlining this provision is that Congress will be able to able to protect America from getting involved in protracted or extremely damaging conflicts, where as a single, possibly Jingoist, president may be more rash. Yet history provides contrary examples, where Congressional indecision to fight may have harmed America or our allies. Indeed isolationist Republicans in Congress did not declare war until America was attacked at Pearl Harbor.
ReplyDeleteGiven the situation in Libya today, and the gift of hindsight, I support Obama's actions in Libya despite the implication they carry: a violation of the War Powers Act. Today Libya is free of a tyrant, free of a civil war, and on the path to a stable democracy. I agree with Rich Lowry and believe that the end justify the means.
Critics of our intervention in Libya argue that if a president can disobey acts of Congress now, in a relatively innocuous way, what is there to stop him in the future when much more is at stake. The War Powers Act exists today, they say, because of Presidential chauvinism that led to our entanglement in South East Asia. Yet Obama's actions are nowhere near as damaging as Nixon's or LBJ's. Also, whenever a president oversteps his power, to a degree that Congress finds inappropriate, they can end military funding, pass new laws, or censure and impeach him. The pendulum of military power has always been swinging between Congress and the Executive, and I do not believe that Obama's actions will lock down that power forever.
According to Jeffrey Anderson, the division of war powers is that "Congress is empowered to decide whether to engage in war, and the President is empowered to decide how to carry out war once it has begun." He cites that the Constitution explicitly says that Congress reserves the right to declare war, and that was what our founders clearly intended. However, when truly urgent and necessary, the President may call for military action like what President Reagan did for his surprise airstrike of Libya, since it did not keep troops occupied.
ReplyDeleteLowry argues that Obama disregarding this act is a good thing since previous Presidents have disagreed with the law, acting "consistent with" but not "pursuant to" the law. He argues that the President's role of commander in chief should not depend on approval of Congress.
I agree with Anderson that Congress needs to approve the President’s military action. The impulses of a single person should not be allowed to dictate our nation’s military action unless our nation is in danger and must act immediately. Although a President declaring a war may help bring a nation together such as under Abraham Lincoln, the War Powers Act still confirms Congress’ check over the President. The main problem with Congress authorizing military action is the delay. It may also interfere with a nation’s unity. During the late 90's Clinton decided to disregard the War Powers Act for a humanitarian reason to interfere with the mass genocide in Yugoslavia by declaring War on Kosovo. Had Clinton decided to wait for Congress' approval, many more lives would have been lost.
Columnist Rich Lowry argued in his article "Obama kills the War Powers Act"that by engaging in an airstrike in Lybia without congressional approval, the the President has all but killed the War Powers Act. Lowry further argues that this is a good thing, and that every President since President Nixon, whose veto was originally overridden on the War Powers Act in 1973. Lowry argues that "The War Powers Act is an excrescence on the American constitutional order that deserves to be the dead letter that President Obama is making it." Further stating that the President should have freedom to act in such situations free of congress.
ReplyDeleteColumnist Jeffery Anderson takes a very different view of Obama's intervention in Lybia. Anderson cites the constitution as saying that "The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War" and therefore it is not within the President's power to do so. Anderson goes on to say that while there have been situations in which an attack required an element of surprise, where the President was correct in not seeking Congressional approval, that situation did not apply to Obama, as he had time to seek UN approval and is 80 days into the conflict and has yet to seek congressional approval for Military intervention.
I agree with Anderson. I don't feel that the President has, nor should he have, the right to declare war. I also agree with the Wall Street Journal, who Anderson quotes saying, “The Constitution gave Congress the right to declare war but gave the President the power to manage conflicts and use the armed forces when needed as Commander in Chief.” Anderson later disagrees with the Journal, but I do not believe that the two views are mutually exclusive. I feel that it is the Congress alone who can declare war and authorize military intervention overseas. Once military action is authorized, then and only then is the President's power to command troops pertinent.
The problem with a system in which congress makes every decision regarding the authorization of military action is that congress can often take time to deliberate. The main argument within this issue is whether or not, while congress is deliberating, the President should be able to act with military force if he feels it is in the nation's best interest. Anderson sites Justice Joseph Story as saying no, the President must have the backing of congress to use the military, as the voice of the people should have more of a say in war than one man speaking for 300 million people. We see this type of conflict in President Nixon's decision, without Congressional approval, to engage in military actions in Cambodia, expanding the Vietnam war. Not only was this a costly endeavor abroad but also cost us tragedy at home with the Kent State protests. No one person could have foreseen these outcomes to expanding a war, but maybe a contingent of people whose job it is to discuss the potential outcomes of such matters, like the US Congress, could have.
America is currently fighting wars all over the world with no end in sight. Maybe allowing the President to make quick decisions is not the best system. Maybe little more Congressional debate is needed before the US plunges into another conflict.
--Jake Ochroch
In his article about Libya and the War Powers Act, Rich Lowry concedes that Barack Obama has violated the War Powers Act. However, instead of seeing this as a negative, Lowry sees this as a major positive, noting how this war unfairly infringes upon the power of the presidency, and asserting how it should be repealed. Jeff Anderson takes a different viewpoint, stating that Obama is making a dangerous power grab. Anderson believes that, “The truth about the War Powers Act is that it grants the president too much authority, not too little.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lowry. Perhaps the utmost job of our President is to serve as Commander in Chief, and if he lacks the authority to declare war, I think it is somewhat of a sign of weakness. I also think that if you look at the context, the War Powers Act was put into place by a Democratic congress trying to take power from an unpopular Republican President. The War Powers Act is not good and should be repealed.
It is worth noting that repealing the War Powers Act could have some negative side affects. A power hungry President could declare a wasteful war, or Presidents could declare wars without doing due diligence and getting congressional perspectives. Still, in spite of its positives, the War Powers Act ought to be repealed, and President Obama is right in attacking Libya.
Jeffery H. Anderson argues that the presidency should and must be subject to the War powers act. Anderson argues that the power to declare war is reserved for congress not the president, and that Obama violated both the constitution and the war powers act by supporting a “war” in Libya. Past presidents have used military intervention as an excuse to place troops in areas without declaring war but Anderson believes that only congress has the right to declare war and any other type of intervention is illegal after 60 days of combat.
ReplyDeleteRich Lowry on the other hand believes that Obama has done the executive branch a favor by pushing the war powers act to the side and going ahead with the intervention in Lybia. Lowry argues that the act was brought upon by a liberal congress that wished to take away powers from the executive. Lowry believes that the war powers act should not have been in place from the start and that Presidents have the right to act without the approval of congress as commander in chief. Lowry believes that by completely ignoring the war powers act Obama has effectively nullified it for future Presidents.
I find myself agreeing more with Lowry’s point of view. Lowry’s ideas give more power to the president, who in fact is given the title of commander in chief, meaning he will make the final decisions. I believe that the president is elected to his position because the people trust his point of view and therefore trust him with the “big red button” and the national security of the country. The president needs to act quickly when it comes to matters of national security and cannot always be waiting on congress for a decision. One problem that one would encounter with the adoption of a nullified war powers act would be an unbalanced check on power that could lead to an extreme overstep. This problem arose when JFK authorized the bay of pigs invasion, an engagement which ended disastrously for the US and built up tensions with Cuba while escalating the cold war. The Bay of Pigs therefore could be blamed on JFK for authorizing it without congressional consent.
-Sam Heyman
Rich Lowry writes that Obama has officially killed the War Powers Act, and that its death was perhaps inevitable, saying "Presidents have typically acted “consistent with,” but not “pursuant to,” the law’s provisions — basically, humoring Congress while never conceding the law’s constitutional legitimacy." Lowry continues to state that the War Powers Act cripples the President’s Constitutional rights as Commander-in-Chief, and that Obama is expressing loyalty to the Constitution by flagrantly defying it.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Anderson responds to Lowry by stating that Obama is not expressing loyalty to the Constitution, in fact he is not being true to the Founder’s intentions at all. Anderson’s main point is that the Constitution intended Congress to, by declaring war, decide when and where the US military would be mobilized, and that after the declaration, the President would decide how the military would be mobilized. By this method, the President is virtually powerless in his role as Commander-in-Chief without a declaration of war. Anderson agrees with the Founder’s intentions, saying that, reasonably, it should be easy to declare peace, hard to declare war in a nation built on ideals based on peacetime.
I don’t necessarily agree with Anderson’s ideas that there absolutely must be a Congressional declaration of war; a resolution signed by Congress is also acceptable, such as the Truman Doctrine or Bush’s resolution to send troops to Iraq. That being said, the President should not be able to mobilize troops for a prolonged period of time – sixty days, according to the War Powers Act – without Congressional approval. Congressional approval, though it can hinder swift execution, is one of the few checks on the powers of the Commander-in-Chief; without it there would be too much power in his hands.
Congressional approval has shown itself to slow execution in and around wartime, such occurred before the US entered World War II, when the US, though they aided the Allies through the Lend-Lease Act, did not until the attack on Pearl Harbor enter the war, despite President Roosevelt’s intentions. However, the decision to go to war should be considered deliberately and carefully, and not subject to any one person’s beliefs or agendas.
Obama’s actions in Libya take one extreme view of the War Powers Act which is supported by “Obama Kills the War Powers Act” by Lowry. The War Powers Act declares that a President must have Congressional consent to go to war, if necessary the President may send troops prior to a declaration of war or resolution, but if, after 60 days, Congress still has not declared war the troops must be withdrawn. It limits the Presidents power and protects Congress’s power to declare war.
ReplyDeleteObama’s actions were illegal, and as argued in “The President Should Decide How, Not Whether, to Wage War” by Jeffery H. Anderson, through Justice Story’s words, “War, in its best estate, never fails to impose upon the people the most burdensome taxes, and personal sufferings.” War involves the people; the representatives of the people have the right, as given by the Constitution, to decide whether the nation should go to war. The War Powers Act sets reasonable limits on the Presidents power, while providing loopholes for necessary immediate action, and reinforces the power to declare war give to Congress by the Constitution.
However, the War Powers Act limits the President’s ability to act on an immediate long-term need. Although, the Vietnam War took place before the War Powers Act it serves as an ideal example to the problems of supporting the Act. The Vietnam War arose because of a perceived need for immediate action. Congress never declared war and if the United States had pulled out of Vietnam after only 60 days, South Vietnam would have become Communist. Similarly, after the September 11 attacks, President Bush felt a need for immediate retaliation. He followed all the legal formalities, but still sent in troops before a declaration of war passed Congress. If Bush had not received Congressional support before the end of 60 days, America would have had to pull out of Iraq, leaving it extremely unstable.
Anderson eloquently argues that the power to declare war by Congress is not just a formality, but rather a crucial decision that requires, as Justice Story wrote, “the utmost deliberation.” I agree with the premise of Anderson’s argument, it being that it is dangerous for the Commander In-Chief to be able to launch airstrikes without a formal authorization by Congress, which includes men of valuable experience when it comes to foreign policy. Between all of the intelligence gathered on Libya during the protests and the amount of time Libyans had been fighting before U.S. intervention, Obama had ample time to prepare to send troops by obtaining authorization, for which I agree he could have made a convincing argument.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am somewhat perturbed by Rich Lowry’s tone, I do give him some credit for illustrating the irony behind Obama’s actions in Libya in the context of the history of the Democrats. I would contend, however, that Obama’s decision to send troops to Libya, which was indeed a flagrant violation of the Act, was not the first of its kind like Lowry implies. Clinton’s bombing campaign in Kosovo was also in complete defiance of the Act. I also disagree with Lowry’s argument that the War Powers Act deserves to be dead. I think that that it’s entirely feasible for a President to notify Congress in time, not ignoring the fact that secrecy in exercise of the military is too authoritative for comfort.
I most agree with Anderson’s response to Rich Lowry: the War Powers Act is a necessary precaution to ensure that presidents do not overstep their bounds of authority when it comes to use of the military. However disconcerted I am that the War Powers Act can easily be disregarded, I still firmly believe that it should still guide presidents’ actions when it comes to war.
But if presidents were to always ask Congress for authorization before any sort of military action, I understand that a pacifist or partisan Congress can obstruct reasonable efforts to intervene and do what is necessary to save lives. Congress may also declare war when maybe a temporary intervention is only needed, giving an especially hawkish president authorization to dispatch troops for a prolonged period of time, such as George W. Bush in Iraq.
- Adam Cohen-Nowak
In the article “ The President Should Decide How, Not Whether, to Wage War” by Jeffrey Anderson, he argues that Obama invading Libya without any approval from the congress goes against the War Powers Act, meaning that he let troops go into Libya and instead of the necessary sixty days, Obama has surpassed that. Although it may or may not be constitutional okay, one man should not have the ultimate powers of carrying out such an operation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it has been done before. Anderson includes how President Regan didn’t ask congress when he needed to perform a one-time strike against Libya. I can see why Obama defying this act is such a problem. If he did invade and it got violent, chaotic and to a point where a war needs to be declared, the congress should have been informed and should have made the necessary decisions to authorize the invasion in the first place.
In “Obama Kills the War Powers Act by Rich Lowry, he argues the complete opposite of Anderson and talks about how the Act is useless at the point since so many presidents have broken this before. In the past 13(?) wars, very the Congress approved few. Richard Nixon was done with this act that he was the one who vetoed it in 1973 stating that it was unconstitutional. Along with that, presidents have made many invasions without congressional approval and it turned out to be a great operation, such as George W. Bush who wanted troops to go into Afghanistan.
Lowry opinon makes more sense. It explains that there is not point into keeping the War Power Act because no president truly follows it. He says Obama is finally using his powers to his full extend.
In "Obama Kills the War Powers Act," Lowry asserts Obama's essential nullification of the War Powers Act in his sending troops to Libya without Congressional approval. Lowry believes that the president is right in doing this. However, Anderson, in his article "The President Should Decide How, Not Whether, to Wage War," claims that his ignorance of the War Powers Act is eliminating the balance of power in our governmental system that the Founders had made inherent to our constitution. He claims that the president is there as commander-in-chief of the military, but not to decide when to use the military.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anderson. There is a reason that we have a separation of powers, and to completely sidestep that as president is an insult to our constitution and the legitimacy of said document. The legislature has the benefit of being an amalgamation of a wide variety of opinions, while the president is but one voice. The gravity of going to war warrants a much broader array of opinions, rather than one single opinion speaking for the American people. Committing to war is much more than simply committing troops--it means setting aside huge portions of our budget to fund an overseas undertaking. This concerns the states, the entire country, and the legislature, and should therefore be decided by a body that more accurately represents such.
The premise of Anderson's article is that the Congress has the power to declare war, and the president has the power to decide how. Anderson is not saying that in times of need the president can not use his constitutional power to make a decision like President Reagan and his airstrike in Libya; however when the president has the time to get congressional approval it is unconstitutional that he does not.
ReplyDeleteLowry argues that Obama disregarded the War Power's Act and basically got rid of it. He claims that the War Power's Act was something that past presidents may have listened to partially, but never truly conceded constitutional legitimacy to. It has often been disregarded. Lowry also argues that there is an inconsistency in many president's views on the War Powers Act. Until his presidency, Obama seemed to part way with the people who supported the act and believed it was a necessity; however in office he is obviously not acting in a fashion consistent with his previous statements.
I personally agree with Anderson. I believe laws exist for a reason, and that Obama disregarding the War Powers Act sends a dangerous message to many people -- the president doesn't even abide by the laws of his nation. More importantly the War Powers Act is a check on power of the executive branch. The system of checks and balances is vital to our system of government. I was somewhat surprised by how accepting Lowry was of Obama's actions. Perhaps the law is somewhat of a nuisance, but how can we just trample over it? My views are probably influenced by the fact that Congress would in most cases be less likely to approve of a war, because I personally dislike wars.
I think aligning with Anderson proves to be less problematic as his views are supported by the War Powers Act and the constitution. The most obvious conflict is that Obama has acted unconstitutionally according to Anderson, and past presidents have as well. But aligning with Lowry pretty much accepts the fact that Obama did something unconstitutional and that "that's okay."
The two articles take opposing positions on a President’s power regarding whether he can initiate war with or without congressional approval, but the authors also focus in on two different historical sources. The political climate of the founding generation was very different from the climate which compelled congress to pass the War Powers Act in 1973. Presidential Authority has expanded greatly from what the Founding Fathers envisioned so when considering Anderson’s argument we must realize that if we base our argument upon the views of the founding generation, the power to engage in warfare is not the only power to bring into question. Though I believe in the merits of the War Powers Act in that the Senate should have direct say in whether to continue, if not initiate, a conflict, I also think that Presidential authority has evolved a lot, and generally for the better since the early 1800’s when Justice Joseph Story wrote his Commentaries on the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe World today moves much more quickly that it did when our constitutional structure was envisioned. In the last 1700’s it would take weeks for news of threats to arrive meaning that a couple days of deliberations did not affect the ability for the U.S. to respond effectively to the aggressor. In the fast-paced world of today where immediate action is needed, a President needs the ability to respond quickly to emergencies. Instead of criticizing Obama for how he dealt with Libya, we should be lauding him for how he wielded his power in such a balanced manner. Though he may have overstepped his legal authority, and that is not a good thing, he was able to exercise immediate action without abusing his authority to get us fully enmeshed in the conflict.
1st – The article makes a good, emphatic point on the great importance of declaring war. As such, it cannot be left to any one, domineering individual – however good meaning they might be, especially in times when the war is not urgently necessary. The article also makes a very good argument for why there is the necessity of congressional approval for war, rather than just appealing to the credibility of the founders.
ReplyDelete2nd – While the second author has a humorous method at attempting to convince the reader that the War Powers act is better dead, I do not agree at all. The idea that as the commander-in-chief, the president should have free reign on any military actions allow the president a near dictatorial power. Such pessimistic ideas will certainly never come to fruition, however, Obama’s thrust in rendering himself the first and last say on all foreign matters is disappointing. The author additionally makes a good point of noting the irony and hypocricy of the president’s actions and the Democrat’s reluctant support of his decision. While Obama’s action makes some sense – he urgently wants to participate in Libya, but knows he may not receive congressional approval from Congress – it is still not excusable! Certainly, there must be other ways to give support without breaking the War Powers Act.
I agree with the first author in that Obama’s action against the War Powers Act is a disservice to what he stands for. Waging war is a life-changing matter for most – as such, the president should tread lightly with such matters by asking for Congressional approval, thereby ensuring the support of those will be most accepted by it. The argument could certainly be made that the engagement in Libya was not really a war – as it involved few ground troops, and resulted in no casualties – but more of a military help to the rebels. I do not fully agree with this viewpoint, but do concede that Obama’s move was not a blatant move against the WPA – but rather another step at chipping away an extremely important bill. His move may seem as a simple overstepping of boundaries, but still benign – but consider that this long precedence now of an overly powerful president may cause actual harm if ever wielded by an unfit person.
If a more strict compliance with the War Powers act was adopted, there may certainly have been fewer wars. There would be no reduction for when the country was in direct threat, such as the Iraqi War or the Civil War. However, unpopular wars started for humanitarian or idealistic reasons started by unpopular presidents would have been struck down. For example, the war in Kosovo that the public did not apparently full support may not have come to fruition, have ended earlier, or not had as much funding.
Samriddhi
The “War Powers Act” is a legal act that requires the President to acquire the approval of Congress before declaring the nation at war; this Act has been routinely been ignored by presidents. In “Obama Kills the War Powers Act” by Rich Lowry, Lowry argues the futility of trying to maintain the War Powers Act, as it has never stopped countless presidents from ignoring it, going over Congress’s head in most past wars. Although overridden, Nixon vetoed the Act in 1973 on the grounds of being unconstitutional, conflicting with the president’s role as Commander in Chief.
ReplyDeleteIn “The President Should Decide How, Not Whether, to Wage War” by Jeffrey Anderson, Anderson gives and outraged accusation of flakiness and near treason of President Obama’s ordered invasion of Libya without congressional approval; clearly this goes against the “War Powers Act.’ Furthermore, Obama previously presented opposition to ignoring the Act. Anderson argues the danger of allowing a single man to have so much power. My personal opinion coincides with Lowry’s. An Act so easily and so heedlessly bypassed has no place in America. Indeed, military action needs to be thought out carefully and public image is at stake. However, the “War Powers Act” fails to serve its purpose, and alterations to address its loopholes would no doubt be unconstitutional. In the end, according to the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the president will, one way or another, have ultimate say over foreign military action.