Resolved:
- Presidents have usurped the war power that rightfully belongs to Congress
**Please post your three (3) questions for the Pro, Con, or both sides of the debate, as well as indicating a question or two you would like to see asked in class (through submitting a "reply". Make sure you read through the questions posted before you, as repeated questions will not count! Questions should be submitted by12/2 at noon (12pm).
1. During times of war, Congress can expand the Presidents powers so that he has more control over the country (powers that he wouldn't have normally because they are not constitutionally granted). Doesn't this prove that the President's powers are not usurped and that Congress still has more war power than the President? (pro)
ReplyDelete2. Regardless of who has more constitutional war power, who do you think is more qualified to have the war power and to make war decisions - Congress or the President? (both)
3. If the founders wrote the Constitution today, based on recent wars and conflicts, do you think they would grant the President more war powers?
I really like question 1!
DeleteIf Congress wanted to see a bigger reassertion of their powers, why aren't they doing more about it?
ReplyDeleteHow can Congress say the President is usurping the powers given to Congress, when they legitimized Lincoln's actions and acquiesced Truman's actions?
Regarding the Clinton example shown by Pious, how do you expect the president to act if Congress does not always have consistent activity (voting down to declare war but then voting to fund bombing)? (pro)
I like question 3!
Delete1. Do you think Presidents generally use these extended war powers more for political reasons or humanitarian reasons? Which is more justifiable?
ReplyDelete2. At what point (if any) does a threat to national security grant a President the right to exercise war powers that generally aren't granted to him?
3. How far should the role of Commander-in-Chief go for a President when exercising his war powers?
I like number 2
Delete1. As explained by Pious, the roles of the president and congress in military activity have conflicted throughout U.S. history rather than only since after World War II. Does this statement transform this issue into a natural conflict in or nation's politics that we should accept and address according to the state of the nation at the time? (both)
ReplyDelete2. This debate revolves around the interactions between congress and the president. However, some may argue that the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on these issues prevents a resolution. What do you think?
3. Is this issue made more complex based on the war or armed conflict in consideration? Jefferson authorizing action against pirates without consent of congress is vastly different than going to war with another nation. In a time were the nation is threatened by global terrorist organization, do we need to consider policy changes in order to defend ourselves?
I like #3.
Delete1. How can you explain that most of the time, since the passage of the 1973 War Powers Act, Congress has largely punted when presidents undertook major military operations?
ReplyDelete2. It takes a majority vote of Congress to declare war. (President vs Congress 51%) How can you explain that the United States won all of the wars declared by Congress between 1812 - 1945?
3. Does the polarization of Congress affect the way they vote to declare war?
Question 3 is interesting!
Delete1. Since war times are argued to be a unifying factor for the American people, does it really matter to the Americans that the President have usurped more war powers than the Congress?
ReplyDelete2. The whole debate revolves around Congress and the President, do you think that the Judiciary has not played it activist role in ruling against the President's encroachment of power?
3. With such a polarized Congress, do you think this open more room for the President to usurp more war powers or otherwise?
#1 is good
Delete1. Explain the media's role in the decision to go to war, and if it helps Congress or the President.
ReplyDelete2. The War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 was created to limit the President's powers in terms of war. Has this been effective enough?
3. How does the President's ability to go public change in times of war? Couldn't one argue that Congress also has this power because war is such a relevant public issue?
I like #3
Delete1. The President's power has grown extensively throughout the modern era. Because of this, isn't it safe to assume that Congress is okay with giving the President more power during times of national crisis?
ReplyDelete2. Kassop argues that President's have taken Congress's war powers and Congress has not been able to reclaim them. If this was true, why hasn't there been a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of a president's usurped war power?
3. To prevent the President overusing his powers, should Congress pass an act to restrain presidential power? If so, what would the act look like and how much of the president's powers would be taken away?
I like question 2 a lot!
DeleteI like 2 as well!
Delete1. Would the founding fathers approve of the war powers congress has transitioned to the president?
ReplyDelete2. Does the polarization of congress increase or decrease the war powers of the president?
3. Do the media and the president's ability to go public affect the way Congress approaches the issue of war?
1- Do you think The War Powers Act has always been an unconstitutional infringement upon the president's rights and responsibilities as commander in chief?
ReplyDelete2- If Congress is not defenseless, as example, they can impeach the president in his abuse of power. Why should we be worried if the president has usurped the war power?
3- What Congress can do regardless of whether there’s a War Powers Act or not?
1. Why do people feel the president is representing the US and its interest abroad, wouldn't military action be part of US interests?
ReplyDelete2.What impact does the media have on limiting the presidents powers regarding the War Powers Act?
3.With increased polarization in congress isn't it better to have one person unilaterally put troops on the ground when time is a factor?
Question 2 is really interesting!
Delete1. How should we reconcile the fact that the president is in charge of the realm of foreign policy, and yet it is Congress that decides when the country needs to go to war?
ReplyDelete2. If the president usurping the war power from Congress was indeed such a problem, wouldn't Congress take that power back or consider those actions to be an impeachable offense? Does their lack of action demonstrate that they are comfortable with the president taking on the war power?
3. Both the pro and the con side of this debate claim to have the constitution on their side, so which side gets to rightly claim this?
1. How does public opinion factor into a president's decision to take military action without Congressional approval?
ReplyDelete2. Has the United States roll as the world's police lessened Congress's power over military action?
3. Does the idea of "joint concord" prove that the president is justified in increasing his war powers?
1. Most recent wars have been fought against groups (taliban) or things (terror). Does Congress really have the power to declare war on a group or thing? Or do they just have power to declare war on countries?
ReplyDelete2. Wars are very different now than when the Constitution was written. Does this alone justify the president's increased power in this area?
3. What would Congress declaring war look like in modern times?
1. Constitutionally the president does not have all the war power. In your opinion, who is better qualified in having war power? The president or congress?
ReplyDelete2. The president is the Commander in Chief, having said that, in your opinion how far should his war powers go?
3. The founding fathers intended for the president to not have all war power. In that case how would they feel about the power he has in war today?