Iraq in 2003

timer Asked: Feb 8th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

As some of you may recall, before the U.S. sent troops to Iraq in 2003, Congress gave President Bush authorization to do so. The White House has always maintained that such Congressional authorization was an unnecessary "rubber stamp" and that it was seeking the approval of Congress not because it had to, but because it wanted to. This is nothing new. No president has ever admitted that Congress has authority to stop him from sending troops abroad to defend U.S. interests. Congress has seen it somewhat differently, however. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.S. § 1541-1548). This Act, although it recognized the president's power to send troops in an emergency without Congressional consent, required the president to get Congressional approval before leaving the troops overseas for an extended period of time. It also imposed certain reporting and other requirements on the commitment of troops. Since the War Powers Resolution was passed, no president has acknowledged its validity, as every president has thought that the Resolution infringes on the president's power as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. In fact, it is very rare that Congress has tried to enforce the War Powers Resolution. The assignment here is: using case law, find out how courts have handled it when people have tried to enforce the War Powers Resolution against the president. Please write an essay to this effect, making sure to cite appropriate case law.

Tutor Answer

School: UCLA



War Power Resolution

Institutional Affiliation
Student’s name




War Power Resolution
Enforcement of War Resolution Powers against the President
There is much debate on the powers of having the US president to send out troops to
other nations for the sake of defense without the Congregational authorization. No president so
far has admitted seeking the approval of the Congress, since they believe that it is not necessary
(Scigliano 2017). Presidents also have the rights to command anything when it comes to dealing
with any kind of war, and observing the congregational law makes them feel that they are being
denied their rights. At the same time, the courts also handle cases of people trying to enforce the
War Powers resolutions against the president differently, depending on what is considered right
in the constitution.
According to Jesse H. Chopper, he says that very few supreme courts opinions address
the war powers and the current debate is actually based on the on the historical practice and
original understanding. Jesse believes that both the Congress and the presidents have the powers
required to settle their own issues without judicial interventions. This means that the courts do
not have enough concrete arguments which can be used in deciding whether the president or the
Congress should perform various duties. In general, cases brought to courts to enforce war
powers resolutions are at times assumed, since the court believes that both parties have all it
takes in handling their issues without necessarily consul...

flag Report DMCA

awesome work thanks

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors