The War Powers Resolution: Intent and Controversy

The distribution of war power in the U.S. has been debatable since severe hostilities across different countries that were initiated by Presidents of the U.S. came out to light. The examination of the constitutional division of authority regarding war powers has provided information on the essence of power that should be balanced between Congress and the President. This paper will discuss the 1973 War Powers Resolution, its intent, influence, and whether it was necessary to introduce this act.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 had several aims that Congress wanted to achieve. The central intent of the act and the Congress was to restrict the power of the U.S. President in starting the military invasion or escalation of military activities overseas. After observing hostilities in Cambodia, Vietnam, and other places, Congress established the act to avoid other possible exhaustive conflicts as the Vietnam War that continued for 20 years (Bill of Rights Institute, n.d.). It was stated in the act that Congress and the President must collectively judge the situation and apply collective agreement into action whenever the U.S. military forces are involved in the conflict. Other limits that Congress intended to reinforce included the president’s necessity to notify Congress in 48 hours about any sign of placement of military troops into hostilities abroad (History.com Editors, 2019). Finally, the president under the act must recall military forces in 60 days if Congress would not declare war or allow to use of forces (History.com Editors, 2019).

The impact of The War Powers Resolution legislation on congressional authority in national security was controversial. The act was intended to give Congress more power and authority so that this legislative organization could restrict the president’s actions. However, history notes that the influence of the act was not sufficient for the congressional authority in national security (Library of Congress, 2019). It is evident that presidents continuously neglected the principles of the act. Instead, they tried to provide information that would be consistent with the law or tried to evoke military deployment avoiding the resolution. Congress members reported that the chief executives did not give notifications and detailed plans of invasions that they pursued; some of them tried to sue presidents for the violation of the resolution, but it was unsuccessful (Library of Congress, 2019). Instead, presidents referred to war principles stated in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization documents (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2020).

In my view, The War Powers Resolution is neither an extension of congressional authority in response to the growth of presidential power nor an unnecessary impingement upon the president’s role as commander in chief. To consider this law as an essential extension of the influence of Congress on the President of the U.S., it had to include provisions that would not be violated or neglected by various commanders-in-chief. It might be noted that the resolution should have implemented more reinforcing principles that would lead to inevitable consequences for presidents. At the same time, the resolution was not intended to impinge upon the president’s role because due to American missiles abroad that were repeated, Congress tried to restrict the president’s war power somehow (Library of Congress, 2019). Unfortunately, The War Powers Resolution was not as effective as it had to be; thus, Congress should have thought about other limiting power leverages.

To conclude, one can say that The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to create principles that would restrict the war power of the president of the U.S. However, the intention did not result in the president’s adherence to new provisions that were aimed to balance power between Congress and the President. Overall, it might be stated that both parties should have better communication to find ways on how to ensure that military escalations are needed and appropriately managed.

References

Bill of Rights Institute. (n.d.). Nixon and the War Powers Resolution. Web.

History.com Editors (2019). War Powers Act. Web.

Library of Congress. (2019). War Powers. Web.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020). War Powers Act. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 2). The War Powers Resolution: Intent and Controversy. https://studycorgi.com/the-war-powers-resolution-intent-and-controversy/

Work Cited

"The War Powers Resolution: Intent and Controversy." StudyCorgi, 2 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/the-war-powers-resolution-intent-and-controversy/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2022) 'The War Powers Resolution: Intent and Controversy'. 2 March.

1. StudyCorgi. "The War Powers Resolution: Intent and Controversy." March 2, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-war-powers-resolution-intent-and-controversy/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "The War Powers Resolution: Intent and Controversy." March 2, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-war-powers-resolution-intent-and-controversy/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2022. "The War Powers Resolution: Intent and Controversy." March 2, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-war-powers-resolution-intent-and-controversy/.

This paper, “The War Powers Resolution: Intent and Controversy”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.