The constitution states that the president has the right to carry out wars as the commander and chief. However, congress has the power to manifest war. The president is only allowed to take action when it comes to sending troops into a war zone when the troops are being fired upon. Since World War II the power of the president to carry out a war has become greater.
The congress …show more content…
Kennedy, without congressional authorization, imposed a naval blockade of Cuba, an act of war, after U.S. intelligence discovered the presence of offensive nuclear missiles on the island. Kennedy was also prepared to launch air strikes against the missile bases and to invade Cuba if necessary. Kennedy also sent 15,000 military “advisors” to South Vietnam to help that government resist subversive efforts by North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.” (Francis P. Sempa)
After the attack of terrorism that took place on September 11, 2001 the power given to the president regarding war has become stronger. The president no long seeks approval from congress regarding the declare needed to start a war. In October of 2001 a month after the terrorist attacks took place President Bush signed a “secret order which allowed National Security Agency to listen in on citizens and foreign nationals” emails, calls, and messages. (“4 Ways Presidential…”)
Congress has tried to limit the war power of the president by creating the War Power Resolution. This happened during President Nixon’s administration. The United States “congress passed the War Powers Resolution to overrule President Nixon’s veto in an effort to curb the president’s rapidly growing powers”. (Ruth Flowers and Elizabeth …show more content…
“Congress must decide what war actually is. The War Powers Resolution fails to define “hostilities,” and this is a giant loophole through which presidents have become accustomed to slipping unilateral hostile actions. For example, President Obama did not consider the enforcement of a no-fly zone, without troops on the ground in Libya in 2011 to constitute “hostilities” or “war,” as imagined by the law. Long gone are the days of uniformed armies fighting clearly declared wars between states. Instead, modern warfare seems destined to involve such unconventional aspects as civilian rebel groups, unmanned drones, and air strikes. By clearly defining “hostilities” and “war,” Congress asserts its own authority and upholds the democratic process as an effective means of oversight over the wide-ranging technologies and tactics of modern warfare.” (Ruth Flowers and Elizabeth