I have a student in one of my classes who is exceptionally bright and participates in class. He is however a very ardent Republican. He never has been rude about it but throughout the year in my class he has seemed to be itching for a debate so, on a recent assignment (most of my assignments are opinion based, as a social studies teacher I think its important), I, against my better judgement went and challenged a couple of his claims. You see, I am a registered independent, but I like to call myself a Social Democrat.
Social = Betterment of society
Democrat = Participation of all citizens
But that discussion can happen on a later date. I decided to include my portion of the discussion on the topic that my student and I are currently engaged in. It has to do with the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution (giving the president the authority to make war on another nation without a formal declaration of war from Congress.)
Should the president have the power to make war upon another nation with the authorization of Congress rather than a formal declaration of war?
First a historical view: The debate as to who would have the power to declare war, the president or Congress. James Madison, later president during a war, argued that the Executive should have the power to repel sudden attacks (9-11 and the subsequent war in
I tend to say that if the president is going to exercise this right then a constitutional amendment needs to be put into place giving the president that power. This would give validity to the act. A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 majorities in both Houses of Congress and then must be ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures (or 38 of the 50). If after that whole process the amendment survives, then it is indeed the will of the people and should be put into our government’s working document (the constitution). Until this is done, then the act is unconstitutional.
I believe that a national debate over this issue would be healthy. The reason that it has not come to a discussion, is that a label of “unpatriotic” or “traitor” has been put on people who question this practice. And very few politicians have the guts to stand up to those claims, so they just go along with it and an apathetic electorate continues to reelect them.
Now, to the War Powers Resolution, which you underlined several portions of, I agree that administrations have followed it very well and that in the case of the
Later, it is discussed that the courts have not intervened and it cites two Supreme Court cases in which it refused to rule as to the constitutionality of this matter. In both of the dissenting opinions to these cases, justices argued that this principle is unconstitutional. I would contend that the reason the court has refused to act, is that they are afraid of what a case like that would do to the stability of the government. However, sometimes it is necessary for the government to do a little bit of self reflecting. Just because the Supreme Court refuses to act upon it does not mean that it is right (see the Supreme Court’s history on Segregation)
