The framers of the American constitution were people who had clearly analyzed the inapplicability of the Articles of the Confederation. They did not want a government that could not be vetoed. Therefore, they had to design a form of government with checks and balances. Thus, they reached to a compromise of the current form of government that consists of the Executive, the Congress and the Judiciary. No single arm of the government was meant to be more superior than the others. But, is this the case today? Can the Congress use its powers to stop the Executive from misusing its powers? Can the Federal courts overturn Congress decisions?
The Wars Power Resolution refers to a resolution which is an Act of 1973 meant to limit the presidency power of deploying the troops to the battlefield without consulting the Congress. Deploying of combat troops according to this law is supposed to be a joint responsibility between the Executive and Congress (History.com Editors, 2019). But many are the times the Executive does not involve the Congress in this issue. The Executive thinks that the Act is too intrusive on its duties and thus sidesteps the Act and terms it as a dangerous check.
For example, President Ronald Reagan sent troops at El Salvador without engaging the Congress in 1981. The War Powers Act requires the Executive to withdraw combat troops within 60 days unless the Congress extends the time limit, but, President Bill Clinton failed to call back troops from Kosovo after 60 days in 1999. President Barack Obama ignored the same Act and sent troops to Libya without Congress approval (History.com Editors, 2019).
The War Powers Act is lenient on the Executive as it allows deployment of troops in hostile situations that are a threat to national security. But, the law requires the Executive to inform the Congress with 48 hours. This is an area the Executive has failed. The attempt of Congress to challenge this culture of the Executive of going against this Act has been severally ignored by the supreme courts. Though, this Act is taken as a war of who is superior between the Executive and the Congress (Crook, 2012), does it mean the Judicial system cannot check the Executive?
The current President, Joe Biden, has been criticizing the former administration misuse of the War Power Act. Now, he is in the power (Demirjian, 2021). Will he restore order in the Executive as far as the War Power Act is concerned? Will he be seeking for congressional buy-in while sending troops to areas that are dangerous and a threat to national security or while safeguarding American interests?
The American constitution was drafted with a conservatism mind. Its framers did not want decisions of national importance to be made by one person. They valued diversity. That is why they introduced the idea of representation and to ensure equal representation they came up with the two Houses; Senate and House of Representatives. The framers of the constitution knew the two houses could take time before reaching an agreement and in many occasion they could end up maintaining the status quo. This mind if applied to the War Powers Act can delay deployment of troops in situations that demand immediate action. Think of a situation where the national security is threatened and the Executive chose to seek for Congress approval, will Congress approve deployment of troops in time?
Congress can only be able to buy-in the Executive ideas of deploying troops in a situation where gerrymandering favors the current administration. Gerrymandering refers to manipulation of representation legislative boundaries to favor a candidate or a political party. If the dominant elected leaders in these houses favors the Executive, then in such a situation the War Powers Act can work. But, in such a political situation the Executive will erode the check and balances role the Congress is meant to perform. The founding fathers of America did not want any arm of the government to dominate or control the other. That means if Congress become a puppet of the Executive, issues of ethical consideration will crop.
The supreme court need to shun engaging in the War Power Act battles as it is doing. This is because if the supreme court overturns the Executive decision regarding deploying of troops without congressional approval, it may make the American security and interests be compromised (Philipps, 2021). Think of the attacks that have been happening around the world targeting the Americans and their properties. Also, the terror attacks and weapons of mass destruction. If the courts term the Executive decision as unconstitutional then these attacks will surge. How will life be without combat troops in Iraq, Korea and other nations that are terror grounds? Before, Congress approve combat deployment America will be debris. At times national interests should supersede some Acts like War Power Resolution.
On the other hand, the failure of the supreme court to engage itself with cases relating to the War Powers Act, may mean laws are made and not implemented. It is evident that since this Act was passed it has not been followed. The supreme court may be fearing setting a precedent that could plunge the nation into chaos.
The Supreme court also may be giving Congress a door to critic the Executive when the results of troops deployment turns negative. What would happen if the Executive deploys combat troops without Congress approval and then all the soldiers perishes in the battlefield? The Congress will probably get an opportunity to criticize the Executive and call for resignation of the existing president. This means even though the Executive may be deploying troops unconstitutionally the blame will bounce back to it.
The Wars Power Resolution refers to a resolution which is an Act of 1973 meant to limit the presidency power of deploying the troops to the battlefield without consulting the Congress. Deploying of combat troops according to this law is supposed to be a joint responsibility between the Executive and Congress (History.com Editors, 2019). But many are the times the Executive does not involve the Congress in this issue. The Executive thinks that the Act is too intrusive on its duties and thus sidesteps the Act and terms it as a dangerous check.
For example, President Ronald Reagan sent troops at El Salvador without engaging the Congress in 1981. The War Powers Act requires the Executive to withdraw combat troops within 60 days unless the Congress extends the time limit, but, President Bill Clinton failed to call back troops from Kosovo after 60 days in 1999. President Barack Obama ignored the same Act and sent troops to Libya without Congress approval (History.com Editors, 2019).
The War Powers Act is lenient on the Executive as it allows deployment of troops in hostile situations that are a threat to national security. But, the law requires the Executive to inform the Congress with 48 hours. This is an area the Executive has failed. The attempt of Congress to challenge this culture of the Executive of going against this Act has been severally ignored by the supreme courts. Though, this Act is taken as a war of who is superior between the Executive and the Congress (Crook, 2012), does it mean the Judicial system cannot check the Executive?
The current President, Joe Biden, has been criticizing the former administration misuse of the War Power Act. Now, he is in the power (Demirjian, 2021). Will he restore order in the Executive as far as the War Power Act is concerned? Will he be seeking for congressional buy-in while sending troops to areas that are dangerous and a threat to national security or while safeguarding American interests?
The American constitution was drafted with a conservatism mind. Its framers did not want decisions of national importance to be made by one person. They valued diversity. That is why they introduced the idea of representation and to ensure equal representation they came up with the two Houses; Senate and House of Representatives. The framers of the constitution knew the two houses could take time before reaching an agreement and in many occasion they could end up maintaining the status quo. This mind if applied to the War Powers Act can delay deployment of troops in situations that demand immediate action. Think of a situation where the national security is threatened and the Executive chose to seek for Congress approval, will Congress approve deployment of troops in time?
Congress can only be able to buy-in the Executive ideas of deploying troops in a situation where gerrymandering favors the current administration. Gerrymandering refers to manipulation of representation legislative boundaries to favor a candidate or a political party. If the dominant elected leaders in these houses favors the Executive, then in such a situation the War Powers Act can work. But, in such a political situation the Executive will erode the check and balances role the Congress is meant to perform. The founding fathers of America did not want any arm of the government to dominate or control the other. That means if Congress become a puppet of the Executive, issues of ethical consideration will crop.
The supreme court need to shun engaging in the War Power Act battles as it is doing. This is because if the supreme court overturns the Executive decision regarding deploying of troops without congressional approval, it may make the American security and interests be compromised (Philipps, 2021). Think of the attacks that have been happening around the world targeting the Americans and their properties. Also, the terror attacks and weapons of mass destruction. If the courts term the Executive decision as unconstitutional then these attacks will surge. How will life be without combat troops in Iraq, Korea and other nations that are terror grounds? Before, Congress approve combat deployment America will be debris. At times national interests should supersede some Acts like War Power Resolution.
On the other hand, the failure of the supreme court to engage itself with cases relating to the War Powers Act, may mean laws are made and not implemented. It is evident that since this Act was passed it has not been followed. The supreme court may be fearing setting a precedent that could plunge the nation into chaos.
The Supreme court also may be giving Congress a door to critic the Executive when the results of troops deployment turns negative. What would happen if the Executive deploys combat troops without Congress approval and then all the soldiers perishes in the battlefield? The Congress will probably get an opportunity to criticize the Executive and call for resignation of the existing president. This means even though the Executive may be deploying troops unconstitutionally the blame will bounce back to it.
