The Legislative Control Essay Example
The Legislative Control Essay Example

The Legislative Control Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
Topics:
  • Pages: 3 (731 words)
  • Published: May 8, 2022
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Louis Fisher’s most recent edition, the third edition, of Presidential War Power is a critic to the presidential actions of both William Clinton and George W. Bush, and the influence in today’s Obama regime. He challenges their expression of executive power (Fisher 2013, 4). Fisher observes that the regime has converted the Revolutionary Republic to an era of military force or use of Acts in what he calls the preemption doctrine. In a republican state, the sovereign power rests on the citizens, moving towards the people they elect in office. The “framers” (Fisher 2013, 5) have transferred the powers over war as well as the foreign affairs to the political class, led by the President (Fisher 2013, 5). In turn, the Presidency has been using various strategies in turning around the war power resolutions.
One of the strategies or patterns

...

is the Presidential powers to initiate war. Some conventions, such as the Pierce Butler’s convention in Philadelphia (Fisher 2013, 14) and Attorney General Edward Bates (Fisher 2013, 23) hold that the President has the skills in the art of war and is the Commander in Chief; hence, he has the power to initiate war. In contrast, Gerry and George Mason object by arguing that it would be better for a president to “repel attacks,” rather than “declare war” (Fisher 2013, 22). Also, Hamilton noted that “the presidential leadership is essential but it cannot operate outside the legislative control” (Fisher 2013, 40)
The theory of assertions of the inherent powers has profound roots in the public office. The framers view that the citizens, the senate, or the presidency have their powers outlined in the constitution but inherent executiv

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

powers still operate only within the presidential docket (Fisher 2013, 30). The legislations that approve the validity of presidential acts have haunted many governments’ stability.

Another aspect of Presidential action, as noted in President Bush’s authorization of the secretive and warrantless surveillance program after an attack indicates the use of the “Empty ‘Sole Organ’ Doctrine” (Fisher 2013, 46). Here, the President is the sole organ in the external relations. The vice remains unresolved as some parts of the constitution cite the doctrine and express presidential powers as exclusive. On the other hand, the courts have never denied the Congress the authority to limit or modify the decisions as per the same constitution (Fisher 2013, 53).
In bypassing the Congress Entirely, the presidents could move into war without consulting the Congress after the World War II. Good examples are the Korean president in 1950, the Kosovar president in 1999, and the Libyan president in 2011 (Fisher 2013, 71). In 1950, President Truman sent military troops to Korea before seeking for a joint resolution with the Congress. More recently, President Barak Obama reported to the Congress his involvement in Libya, after he had already sent troops as well as the NATO (Fisher 2013, 78). Constitutionally, the authority to involve a country in war comes from the Congress.

Another aspect is the Paramilitary Operations and warfare. In a resolution passed by the Congress in 1973, the “War Power Resolution” (Fisher 2013, 88), the introduction of the Armed Forces into hostilities was the main focus. The legislations laid down did not cover the civilian combatants who operated in the paramilitary forces under the Central Intelligence Agency. The Presidents normally use these voids

to secretly or distractively plan “indigenous Laotian forces into hostile actions” (Fisher 2013, 90). They, at times, have agents with arms, but exhibit unnoticeable actions that would result into war (Fisher 2013, 95).
Finally, the Judicial Ruling of 1800 to 1863 decided and accepted most of the war power cases. The prevalent national policy stated that the power to initiate war lay with the Congress, as in the Quasi-war of 1978 (Fisher 2013, 55). Nevertheless, people like the Attorney General Charles Lee could advice President John Adams that the maritime war was a war between France and the U.S (Fisher 2013, 56). The Attorney General’s comments trigger the President’s decision, even without prior consultations.

In summary, the Framers vested the power to declare war on the Congress. However, after the World War II, it became difficult to recognize the source of war power. The roles of the U.N. Charter and the NATO are misconceived by shifting the authority to the President. On its part, the Congress has not done much to reinstate its veto powers. The end result is a weakened representative government and a government system full of checks and balances. All these virtues, therefore, are a threat to general stability and peace.

Bibliography
Fisher, Louis. 2013. Presidential war power.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New