An Analysis of the War Powers Act of 1973

One of the hallmarks of a presidential and democratic ball club is the division of situations among the three main branches of regimen. This is callight-emitting diode the article of belief of the detachment of powers or the principle of checks and balances. This principle seeks to prevent the over concentration of authority in ane person or group of persons that might lead to an error or ab do to the prejudice of the whole state.Austin Ranney (1995) once verbalize that every concentration of powers in a maven branch is tyrannical and just now true separation of powers will protect the liberties of the people against the aggressions of government. (Austin Ranney, p. 240) The principle of separation of powers has eer been criticized as impeding the transition of bills and promoting efficiency in the trial of the affairs of the government. It is because of this reason why some democratic countries lay down revise their constitutions and shifted to the parliamentary syste m. struggle Powers trifle of 1973 A concrete example of the article of belief of Separation of Power is the contend powers which the US set about-up has entrusted to the Executive and the legislative Branch. Under the unify States Constitution, it may appear that the delineation of war power amid the Legislative and Executive Branch is cle bed. The purpose is to make current that no unmatchable branch of government will have the authoritative prerogative in making all decisions in matters pertaining to war.Article 1 Section 8 of the linked States Constitution clearly expresses that the Congress shall have the following powers a) To declare War, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water b) To raise and support armies, but no annexation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than twain years c) to picture and maintain a navy d) to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval Forces e) to pro vide for the calling of the militia to feed the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions f) to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing much(prenominal) part of them as may be employed in the service of the unify States, reserving to the states respectively, the troth of the touchrs, and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.On the other hand, under Article II Sec. 2 of the united States Constitution the chairman shall have the following powers a) The President shall be commander in Chief of the army and navy of the linked States, and of the militia of the several(prenominal) States b) The president shall have power, by and with the advice and consend of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators exemplify concur. Based on these two provisions in the get together States Constitution, the war powers appear to be clearly divided between the two main branches of government.Under these provisions, the President has the power to lead the gird forces in measure of war and to make swift decisions on the field of battle. (War and fragility Powers) On the other hand, the Congress has the power to declare war and to impound huge amounts of dollars in support of the war effort. The clear division of powers between the two main branches, however, appear to be more apparent than real. In between these two powers lie a vacuum which the framers of the constitution failed to consider. For every other decisions that the US Constitution failed to anticipate, it appears that the President has complete freedom and overbearing discretion to deed.This is some subject which is abhorred by our constitution. Consider the Korean War in which the United States army was intensely involved. The Korean War began as a well-mannered war which was fought from 19501953 on the Korean Peninsula. It began when North Korean attacked southeastern Korea on June 25, 1950. (Korean War) Eventually China and the United States became involved in this conflict. Although it was called the Korean War, the United States preferred to call it the police action kind of than a war in set to avoid the necessity of perfunctory declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. The same thing happened during the Vietnam War or the Vietnam Conflict.This war lasted for 16 which began from 1959 to 1975. (Vietnam War) This involved the United States, its allies and the South Vietnam against Soviet Union, its allies and the Peoples res publica of China and the North Vietnam. In this war, the U. S. deployed large numbers of serviceman to South Vietnam between 1954 and 1973. Some U. S. allies like the Philippines, Australa and New Zealand also sent their troops to aid the United States and South Vietnam. Similar to the Korean War, the United States was also intensely involved in this war without a orb declaration of war by Congress. Thes e two major events in our tarradiddle have triggered the enactment of the War Powers achievement of 1973.It is worth stressing that based on our history Congress has dinner dressly declared war in further five conflicts the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II while U. S. presidents have committed armed forces to more than one hundred combat operations around the world. (Charles F. Williams, 2003) The purpose of this law is to provide for a limitation on the powers of the President to deploy United States troops into combat areas without the approval of the legislative branch. Congress aims to prevent the possibility that a nonher(prenominal) Korean and Vietnam Wars may be repeated where the United States deployed its soldiers for battle without the formal declaration of war coming from the Congress.Section 2(a) of the said law is clear on this matter, it states that It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the inte nt of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States arm Forces into hostilities, or into situations where close at hand(predicate) involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. Under the said law, the president is required to consult Congress in every assertable instance before introducing United States arm Forces into hostilities or into situation where impendent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been remote from such situations.The War Powers Act of 1973 also requires the President to submit at bottom 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives an d to the President pro tempore of the Senate a discipline, in writing, setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces, the ingrained and legislative authority under which such introduction took place and the estimated eye socket and duration of the hostilities or involvement in case United States Armed forces are actually introduced for combat. The said law also requires the President to check within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted any use of United States Armed Forces unless the Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces or has extended by law such sixty-day layover or is physically unable to meet as a solving of an armed attack upon the United States.The sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of deliverance about a prompt removal of such forces. The Congress by concurrent resolution is authorized at all times to order the withdrawal of US troops. Arguments against War Powers Act of 1973 One of the arguments raised against the enactment of the War Powers Act of 1973 is that it is an act of encroachment on the part of the legislative assembly of a territory which the US Constitution has delegated to the Executive Branch. It must be stressed that the President took his oath before he assumed his office that he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and he will to the best of his ability preserve and protect and suffer the Constitution of the United States.The present statute significantly limits the powers of the president to act in times of war which have a serious force out on the performance of his obligation. Arguments In Favor of War Pow ers Act of 1973 On the other hand, some are in favor of the War Powers Act of 1973. They argue that the consultation and reporting requirements and the power of Congress to terminate the deployment of armed forces do not operate to limit the powers of the president. It merely serves to ensure that the constituent(a) mandate is observed. As envisioned by the United States Constitution, there shall always be two blushers to start the engine of war running the key given to the Congress and the key given to the President.Thus, the War Powers Act of 1973 does make Congress superior to the President, rather, it only highlights the supremacy of the United States Constitution. Conclusion I believe that the War Powers Act of 1973 is constitutional. Our history has shown that we cannot entrust to a single man the power to deploy United States troops to combat. In the last(prenominal) decade, all the past presidents, including our present president, has deployed hundreds of thousands of US soldiers to battle. This not only led to the death of countless soldiers but it has depleted our resources. The United States Constitution is all the same the highest law of the land and it is clearly manifested in the enactment of the War Powers Act of 1973.