Balance of Power: How has the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches evolved over time?

Examining the President as Commander and Chief

Is our current system for deciding when, where and for how long to deploy US armed forces balanced?

Expansion of Power

Conflict Requested by President

Granted by Congress

World War II

Tonkin Gulf (Vietnam)

Afghan War Resolution

The War Powers Act

• Why was the WPA passed by Congress?• What are the major provisions of the act?• Under what circumstances can the President

send US troops into harm’s way?• Does the WPA provide guidelines for decision

making after troops are deployed?• Is the WPA constitutional?

What was the War Powers Act Purpose

• During the Vietnam war, Congress felt that a slow erosion of their role in wartime decision making had occurred.

• The goal of WPA was to “Insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of US Armed forces into hostilities” – WPA of 1973

• To maintain balance of power.

Consultation with Congress

• The President should consult with Congress before introducing the US Armed forces into hostilities in every possible instance. – WPA Section 3

• Once the armed forces are engaged, the President should continue to consult Congress.

Question for Discussion.• What do you consider consultation?

Reporting to the Congress

• Sec. 4. (a) 1 – Is a major provision in the WPA aimed at keeping the Congress appraised of military engagements.

• If no formal declaration of war or Congressional resolution has been passed.

• And the president sends troops into hostile or imminently hostile situations, the president within 48 hours must submit a report to the Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tem explaining why forces were introduced.

• This triggers the time limit provision.

After Sec 4(a) 1 is triggered

After 60 days of a report triggering Sec 4(a)1 the president MUST withdraw troops unless the following has occurred.

1) War has been declared or a specific authorization approved by Congress.

2) The 60 day period has been extended by Congress 3) The US has been attacked and meeting that time

frame is not possible. If these three qualifications are not met, the president has

and additional 30 days to withdraw the troops in addition to the 60, due to imminent danger to the troops.

Have Presidents followed the War Powers Act?

Presidents of both parties have consistently maintained the WPA is not constitutional.

Many presidents have simply not invoked Sec 4(a)1 if reporting to Congress, thus avoiding the 60 day countdown period.

Debate about the effectiveness of WPA has stemmed around what military engagements are considered actual hostilities?

When enforcing UN or NATO resolutions do presidents need authorization of congress? Key question.

Post 1973 Examples

1981 – El Salvador, Reagan sent military advisors, never reported to Congress. Congress sued citing WPA. The congress lost the lawsuit.

1990-91 – Gulf War I – Bush Senior did receive congressional approval for military action, but consistently stated he did not need Congressional authorization to enforce UN resolutions.

1993-99 – Balkan Engagements – Clinton cited similar justification as Bush Senior; also reiterated unconstitutionality of WPA, was sued by Congress, and Congress lost again.

WPA Discussion

Do you think the WPA is constitutional or unconstitutional why?

Does the WPA infringe on the President’s expressed power of commander in chief?

Does the WPA go far enough to limit the president? Should it be amended or replaced?

Is the WPA work?

Washington Post Editorials

What is your authors main point of their editorial? How do you interpret Krauthammer’s opinions about

the coalition? Do you think Krauthammer is opposed to military

action in Libya? How does vanden Heuvel differentiate Obama’s

Libya strategy with Bush’s Iraq strategy? Does vanden Heuvel support military action? What

is her concerns long term? Do you agree or disagree with these editorial

writers opinion?