Yes I think that the War Powers Act is constitutional because in the constitution it specifically says that congress has to power to do anything that is necessary and proper. When this was passed Congress had a proper reason to pass this law due to the fact of soldiers being misused by the president. This also can be seen as a part of the checks and balances system used by our government, this allows Congress to check and make sure that the President isn't abusing power.
I agree with Tyler and think that the War Powers Act was in fact constitutional and without it the United States might have been able to add more wars to the list of the ones that we have already been in thanks to one person acting as the commander without the consent of the many.
I agree with Tyler and Austin that the War Powers Act is constitutional because as Tyler said, the Constitution gives Congress the power to do anything "necessary and proper". This gives Congress the right to do what they see as necessary and be the judges of when and how to take action. This also prevents the president from declaring war without the consent of Congress, so it keeps the president's power in check and helps to prevent war.
I agree that it's constitutional because the president is the most important person in the nation and he's put into power for a reason, so when there's a crisis or disaster we can turn to the president and look for him to make major decisions to keep us safe and do the things that are, "necessary and proper" this is one of the most important jobs of the president.
I disagree that the War Powers Act is constitutional. I think this should be considered unconstitutional because it allows the president to deploy troops as he/she sees fit. This could be viewed as the president attempting to declare war on a certain country, which itself is unconstitutional as Congress is the only body allowed to declare war.
I agree that the War Power Act is unconstitutional because of the fact that the act threatens the balance of power between the three branches of government. Each branch has certain powers and each brach can check the powers of the other branches. Congress has the power to FORMALLY declare war, while the president is commander in chief and has the power to send troops into war. The War Powers Act challenges this, by giving more power to Congress and allowing them to remove troops if Congress doesn't rule that the troops can stay in position. This upsets the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive Branch and gives more power to the Legislative branch. Personally, I also believe that the that Congress must approve the use of troops after a certain amount of days would make the US military movements slow and inefficient, because they would have to come back to the US if congress doesn't approve it right away, which is likely because Congress does few things quickly. Also many politicians already believe if anyone enforced the act, it would be considered unconstitutional today.
I see both sides. I think that the war powers act is not used right and I think that this allows the president to pretty much declare war. I think that it does put a check on our president though which is also good in the system of government that we have.
I see what you are saying. The War Powers Act takes away power from the president, but I feel like it also protects the power of Congress. As the commander in chief, the president can send troops. But the way things have been handled is that he can fight wars without offically declaring war. So I see the claim for both sides as to how their side is getting power taken away.
Yes I think that the War Powers Act is constitutional because in the constitution it specifically says that congress has to power to do anything that is necessary and proper. When this was passed Congress had a proper reason to pass this law due to the fact of soldiers being misused by the president. This also can be seen as a part of the checks and balances system used by our government, this allows Congress to check and make sure that the President isn't abusing power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tyler and think that the War Powers Act was in fact constitutional and without it the United States might have been able to add more wars to the list of the ones that we have already been in thanks to one person acting as the commander without the consent of the many.
DeleteI agree with Tyler and Austin that the War Powers Act is constitutional because as Tyler said, the Constitution gives Congress the power to do anything "necessary and proper". This gives Congress the right to do what they see as necessary and be the judges of when and how to take action. This also prevents the president from declaring war without the consent of Congress, so it keeps the president's power in check and helps to prevent war.
DeleteI agree that it's constitutional because the president is the most important person in the nation and he's put into power for a reason, so when there's a crisis or disaster we can turn to the president and look for him to make major decisions to keep us safe and do the things that are, "necessary and proper" this is one of the most important jobs of the president.
DeleteI disagree that the War Powers Act is constitutional. I think this should be considered unconstitutional because it allows the president to deploy troops as he/she sees fit. This could be viewed as the president attempting to declare war on a certain country, which itself is unconstitutional as Congress is the only body allowed to declare war.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the War Power Act is unconstitutional because of the fact that the act threatens the balance of power between the three branches of government. Each branch has certain powers and each brach can check the powers of the other branches. Congress has the power to FORMALLY declare war, while the president is commander in chief and has the power to send troops into war. The War Powers Act challenges this, by giving more power to Congress and allowing them to remove troops if Congress doesn't rule that the troops can stay in position. This upsets the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive Branch and gives more power to the Legislative branch. Personally, I also believe that the that Congress must approve the use of troops after a certain amount of days would make the US military movements slow and inefficient, because they would have to come back to the US if congress doesn't approve it right away, which is likely because Congress does few things quickly. Also many politicians already believe if anyone enforced the act, it would be considered unconstitutional today.
DeleteI see both sides. I think that the war powers act is not used right and I think that this allows the president to pretty much declare war. I think that it does put a check on our president though which is also good in the system of government that we have.
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying. The War Powers Act takes away power from the president, but I feel like it also protects the power of Congress. As the commander in chief, the president can send troops. But the way things have been handled is that he can fight wars without offically declaring war. So I see the claim for both sides as to how their side is getting power taken away.
Delete