Resolved:
- Fighting the war on terrorism requires relaxing checks on presidential power
**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 by12/8 at noon (12pm).
Have the benefits of the relaxing of powers outweighed the disadvantages? Wouldn't we rather see more outcomes from presidents like FDR and Lincoln over Nixon?
ReplyDeleteIf the president uses powers not rightfully given to him, couldn't our constitutional system be able to just fix the problem, by forcing them out of office for example?
How can Congress declare the "war on terrorism" a war? Does it need to be looked at differently because it is so different from previous wars?
Like your question #3
Delete1- Do you think that balance civil liberties, security interests, and in wartime liberties will give the government better chances to win, if President Bush have reduced civil liberties and was successful?
ReplyDelete2- The First Amendment declares a national policy that supported broad public debate on national issues. Do you think, now a day, the people give broad public debates on national issues? If so, do you think they are influential?
3- Do you think Congressional Committees needs constitutional powers to interview in presidential decisions to avoid incompetent resolutions from him? If so, what kind and how far should they go with it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Since 9/11 presidents have been given a lot of power in decision making without checks on presidential powers. How far do you think we can allow this to go until it becomes unconstitutional?
ReplyDelete2. How does public opinion affect checks on presidential power during this time of war on terrorism?
3. Do relaxing checks on presidential power outweigh the duty of the judicial branch to preserve due process requirements?
1. Given the recent war on terror in the Middle East and the US involvement in the region, do you think the Congress will be more or less willing to be more relaxed on the checks on the president in future situations? Why?
ReplyDelete2. After 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization for Military Force Against Terrorists allowing the president to military force necessary and appropriate against those responsible for the attack on the United States. It was determined the attacks were acts of terrorism. Is it not important to continue to give the president this authorization to fight the war on terror to prevent future attacks on US soil?
3. If there were an of increase of terrorist acts or threats on the United States, would Congress be more willing to let the checks on the president be more relaxed?
1. Is public opinion enough of a check on the president when it comes to the war on terror?
ReplyDelete2. In what specific ways would you relax the checks on presidential power?
3. If we relaxed the checks on presidential power for a war on terror, what is to stop a president from declaring new "wars" in order to keep his newfound powers?
I like #1
Delete1. Benjamin Franklin once said that "those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." How would you try to persuade him/justify to him that expansion of executive power is the best route in times of crisis?
ReplyDelete2. If 9/11 would not have been a direct attack on our homeland and we would not have been united, would the War on Terror have proved to be even worse for Bush than what Vietnam was for Johnson? Put another way: if we had not rallied around the flag would Bush have been more likely to lose reelection?
3. What role do presidential dreams/ambitions by Congressmen potentially play in them not limiting the power of the president?
I like #2 and #3
Delete#1 is good
Delete1. Would there be any repercussions of relaxing presidential powers? Could this allow the executive branch to become more dictatorial during times of war?
ReplyDelete2.Fisher argues that the framers did not want concentrated war powers in the hands of the President because they saw that most leaders did not fight wars for national interest. With this in mind, is it even constitutional to relax the checks and balances during a time of war?
3. Congress continually allows the President to have exponential power during times of war. Since Congress usually does not object, does this mean that they and their constituents are okay with the President having that much power?
I like #2
Delete#3 is a good one.
Delete1. How does terrorism differ from other situations such as going to war with a sovereign state?
ReplyDelete2. Why is it that the presidential power seems to grow in almost every aspect especially fighting wars and terrorism?
3. How would we be affected if we did the opposite of relaxing checks on power and give the president more freedom to do as he pleases?
1. In regards to war on terror, does the President deserve to have relax check and balances due to the fact that most of these wars are not fought in the U.S. soil?
ReplyDelete2. It is impossible for one to think that the Framers envisioned modern threats, particularly terrorist group like Al Qaeda. In your opinion, do you think the Framers would grant more war powers to the President today knowing how rampant modern threats are to U.S. National Security?
3. How much do you think public opinion play a factor when it comes to President's policies maneuvering during war times?
I like #1
DeleteAre there different ways we could create a more powerful executive in times of war, without relaxing the checks?
ReplyDeleteWould the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis have been different if President Kennedy had more checks/restrictions on his power?
Since the times and terror situations have changed dramatically since the framers created the system of checks and balances, do you think the system could use some renovation?
Is it really necessary for citizens to lose privacy in the interest of national security?
ReplyDeleteDoes the Executive "hype up" the public regarding going to war against terrorism?
Would the citizens really have a say in the decision to go to war, as is suggested by the "public debate" aspect of this chapter?
Dang, #1 is good.
Delete1. Is the Supreme Court's recent stance against the president's use of power a sign that the president requires more checks?
ReplyDelete2. Have the efforts by the president and the NSA to protect our freedom through spying gone too far?
3. If the checks on the president are relaxed, can one man be trusted to lead a conflict in the middle east?
1. Since it is enumerated in the Constitution that only Congress has power to declare war, does it mean that when it comes to war on terror, the president can act beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution?
ReplyDelete2. If fighting the war on terrorism requires relaxing checks on presidential power, doesn't this allow the president to usurp more power?
3. Does it really matter how the President is checked by other branches, since war on terror has been an unifying factor for Americans ever since the 9/11 catastrophe?