CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND THE JUDICIARY

at
Categories
Tags

Balance of Power and the War Powers Resolution
For this assignment, you will prepare a debate paper covering an
issue that involves the balance of power between the executive and
the legislative branches: The War Powers Resolution.
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify
Congress when he or she sends troops into combat and requires
the president to withdraw them within 60 days if Congress does not
approve of the actions. The executive branch has never
acknowledged the constitutionality of this law.
Case Assignment
Step 1
Write a 3 to 4-page debate paper that address the following
scenario:
You are serving an internship with a candidate running for
Congress. She has asked you to help her prepare for a series of
debates over central topics facing the nation. In the first section of
the debate paper, you will provide the most powerful argument
possible in favor of one side of the debate, and then you will do the
same for the other side. Finally, you will write a critique of the side
of the issue with which you disagree.

In the paper, you will debate whether the scope of the War Powers
Resolution should be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which
has refused to hear challenges made by members of Congress to
force the president to abide by the law. When addressing this topic,
you must think carefully about the roles of all three branches of
government and about the processes that led to the passage of and
that support the current status of the War Powers Resolution. Your
candidate’s debates will take place before an audience of the
general public, so be sure to explain the roles of the three branches
of government and the current implications of the War Powers
Resolution clearly.
Step 2
Research the topic.
Being able to apply information-literacy skills in studying politics is
critical. Access the Internet to research and learn about the War
Powers Resolution and the debates surrounding it. Consider your
sources carefully when you research, keeping the following points
in mind:
Primary sources, such as government websites, will be more
informative and less subjective than secondary sources.
Check the reference lists or sources of any secondary online
source you find, such as a journal or newspaper article. Has the
author provided solid background for the opinions he or she
expresses?
Do not accept the opinions of any individual secondary source
without question. Consider the site where you found the source.
What is its primary purpose? Who is its intended audience?

Sample Solution

Introduction

The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 stands at a crossroads. Passed by Congress in an attempt to reassert its war-making authority after decades of presidential expansion, its constitutionality and effectiveness remain hotly contested. While the WPR mandates presidential notification of troop deployments and requires withdrawal without Congressional approval after 60 days, no president has ever fully complied, and the Supreme Court has declined to rule on its legality. This debate paper explores the arguments for and against letting the Supreme Court decide the WPR’s scope, analyzing the impact on the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.

Arguments for Supreme Court Intervention

  1. Constitutional Clarity: The WPR’s ambiguity has fueled decades of political gridlock and executive overreach. A definitive Supreme Court ruling would clarify its constitutionality and enforce the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. This would ensure that future presidents cannot unilaterally engage in military actions without Congressional consent, upholding the checks and balances crucial to a healthy democracy.
  2. Enforcement Mechanisms: Without a Supreme Court ruling, the WPR lacks teeth. Congress has limited options to enforce its provisions, often resorting to symbolic disapproval or funding cuts which prove ineffective against a determined president. A favorable ruling from the Court could establish legal mechanisms to compel presidents to comply with the WPR, thereby strengthening Congressional oversight and accountability.
  3. Public Trust and Legitimacy: The current ambiguity surrounding the WPR erodes public trust in both the legislative and executive branches. A clear ruling would resolve the legal uncertainty, demonstrating that each branch acts within its constitutional bounds. This transparency and accountability are essential for maintaining public trust in the government’s ability to wage war responsibly.

Arguments Against Supreme Court Intervention

  1. Political Quagmire: The Supreme Court is often reluctant to wade into politically charged issues, especially those with potential for gridlock within the Court itself. Allowing a legal challenge to the WPR could politicize the Court, further erode public trust in an already divided institution, and delay a resolution for years.
  2. Separation of Powers Concerns: Some argue that a Supreme Court ruling could unduly limit the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority. They contend that the president needs flexibility to respond to unforeseen threats and that Congressional oversight could impede timely and decisive action, potentially jeopardizing national security.
  3. Congressional Inaction: Critics argue that the onus lies with Congress to enforce the WPR, not the courts. They point to instances where Congress has failed to act decisively, even in clear cases of executive overreach. A Supreme Court ruling, they argue, would absolve Congress of its responsibility to assert its war-making authority, potentially perpetuating the current state of affairs.

Critique of Arguments Against Supreme Court Intervention

While concerns about politicizing the Court or undermining the president’s authority are valid, they should not preclude a judicial review. The current ambiguity of the WPR has demonstrably weakened Congressional power and created a power imbalance in favor of the executive. A clear ruling, even if unfavorable to the legislative branch, would at least provide a definitive answer and pave the way for future reform or constitutional amendments if necessary.

Furthermore, Congress has not been entirely inactive. It has attempted to exert its authority through various measures, including funding restrictions, conditional authorizations, and legal challenges. However, these efforts have been met with resistance from the executive branch, highlighting the need for a definitive legal framework to settle the dispute.

Ultimately, allowing the Supreme Court to decide the WPR’s scope represents the best chance for clarity and accountability. It would force both branches to operate within their constitutional boundaries, ensuring a more balanced and responsible approach to the use of military force.

Conclusion

The War Powers Resolution remains a contentious issue, symbolizing the ongoing struggle for balance between the legislative and executive branches. While the Supreme Court’s intervention is not without risks, it offers the most promising path towards resolving the ambiguity surrounding the WPR and ensuring a more robust system of checks and balances in the future. By subjecting the WPR to judicial scrutiny, the nation can finally move towards a clearer understanding of war-making authority and its implications for American democracy.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer