English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

is it congress rite?

2006-09-26 17:27:42 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

Congress has the Constitutional power to Declare War. However, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, the President may initiate military action without consulting Congress. If the conflict proves to be long in duration, Congress must pass a bill authorizing the president's actions, though not necessarily by declaring war.

jbtascam has it right.

2006-09-26 17:31:39 · answer #1 · answered by Skippy 6 · 2 0

Congress has the authority to "declare" war.

The President is the "Commander in Chief" of the United States Millitary, and as such deploys them as he sees fit.

Under the "War Powers Act" the President must get Authorization to deploy troops in "hot zones" after 90 days - so he can basically run any operation that doesn't take longer than that without Congressional approval.

Anyone with an army has the "ability to wage war." *wink*

2006-09-26 17:33:37 · answer #2 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 2 0

The president with 2/3 vote of congress.

2006-09-26 17:29:04 · answer #3 · answered by pixles 5 · 1 1

While I may be thinking beyond the scope of your question, the real power to wage war resides in the hands of the people. Study the war of 1812. You will see what happens when the people decided not to participate in a war. Vietnam was not, by far, the first unpopular in our history.

2006-09-26 17:33:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

War has been redefined many times...too act in the immediate defense of a country without declaring war...the president does..Congress declares wars but can cut funding to stop a military action

2006-09-26 17:31:42 · answer #5 · answered by loofa36 6 · 2 1

anyone can wage war. I can wage war on termites. On aids. On poverty. On conservatives. On liberals. On my neighbors. War is an ingrained feeling of entitlement, minus enlightenment. Conflicts range from the minute to the global. We are who we are for a reason. Without this burning desire to control our surroundings and environment and impose our will on all things, we would become stagnant and die off as a species. Necessity is the mother of invention and our contrary nature insures we shall continue to evolve

2006-09-26 17:33:13 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 1 2

the president can request a vote to go to war but Congress is the only ones in our governemetn that can declare war.

2006-09-26 17:31:15 · answer #7 · answered by vail2073 5 · 3 0

U.S. Constitution
Article. I.
Section. 8
The Congress shall have Power To
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Article. II.
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

PRESIDENTIAL POWERS IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY:
Could Terrorism Result In A Constitutional Dictator?
By JOHN W. DEAN

An American President, should he need them, possesses awesome powers. Those powers potentially include what political scientists have described as the powers of a "constitutional dictatorship." No President has ever had to go that far - although they have come close.

Democracy works best in times of peace, when there is debate, compromise, and deliberation in forming governing rules, regulations, and policies. When confronted with a major crisis - particularly one that is, like terrorism, of an unfamiliar nature - the nation will turn to the President for initiative and resolute leadership. If our very existence and way of life are threatened, Americans will want their President to do whatever is necessary.

While our constitution contains no express provision for "emergency" or "crisis" situations, such a provision is not necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Ex Parte Milligan, following the Civil War, that "the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence." Or as one commentator has added, "self-preservation is the first law of any nation."

Lincoln launched the Civil War unilaterally, without Congressional action, following the secession of seven Southern states.

Wilson asked for and received near dictatorial powers from Congress when attacks by Germany against American ships and submarines plunged the nation into World War I. He had to raise and equip a large army to fight on foreign soil. To do so, he demanded and received unprecedented new power and authority.

When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, the world-wide Great Depression had reached its depths. The new President promised action, and during his first 100 days, Congress gave him what he needed to enable him to use federal powers to rout the Depression and rescue every sector of the economy, as well as state and local government, from economic ruin.
Later, following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, which forced the United States into World War II, FDR's exertion of his presidential powers would far exceed anything Wilson or Lincoln had done. Through the strength of his personality, Roosevelt lead the nation from that day of "infamy" through battles in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Pacific to total victory.
While FDR continued to ask Congress for what he needed, he gave them no choice as to whether they would accede. For example, in demanding that Congress repeal provisions in the Price Control Act (prohibiting ceilings on certain food products), he told the Congress: "In the event the Congress should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall accept the responsibility, and I will act." And he reminded the Congress: "The President has the power ... to take measures necessary to avert a disaster which would interfere with winning of the war."

Of course, the very concept of a "dictatorship" is offensive and inimical to our political thinking as citizens of a democracy. And Rossiter acknowledges that no American government has ever been a true constitutional dictatorship, as that concept is understood by students of government. Rather, he uses the term, in the American context, as "convenient hyperbole" - an exaggeration meant to underscore how many, and how extensive, have been the powers American presidents have necessarily arrogated to themselves in wartime.

Recall that FDR took the nation from a "limited" national emergency on September 8, 1939, to an "unlimited" emergency by May 27, 1941, and then to total war by December 7, 1941. Anyone who does not believe the war on terrorism will escalate, as well, is in denial.

"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.

That is all I have to add. I think it is enough and a lot to think about.

2006-09-26 17:59:26 · answer #8 · answered by Wilkow Conservative 3 · 0 0

As PRP said, it is a conjuction of the President with Congressional approval.

2006-09-26 17:31:27 · answer #9 · answered by Mr Mojo Risin 4 · 1 1

Everyone.

Who has the RIGHT to wage war? No one. Who has the right to kill someone? let alone thousands of people?
That won't stop them.

2006-09-26 17:29:49 · answer #10 · answered by Roadpizza 4 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers