The Federal Government has too much power, but where does it come from? I think that it comes from nowhere. Meaning, I believe that it is becoming increasingly prevalent for the government to derive its power from its own will, not that of the constitution. Some might argue, what’s wrong with that if the government is implementing policy for the good of the people. The problem is that if there’s nothing restricting the government from acting on self-control, especially if it has become the common practice, then what is to stop the government when they do need to be controlled because of, to phrase it lightly, their misguided tendencies?
A good example of the government overstepping its boundaries is the “enormous war-making power of the president,” as stated by Jonathan Chait. A couple of years ago, President Obama deployed troops to Libya, spending millions on this war action, all without the consent of Congress. While on its face this contradicts the constitution, in our modern day, this type of action was okay under the War Powers Resolution, which grants such an action as permissible, so long as Congress assents 60 days post operation, relays the New York Times. Well, Congress did not agree…and President Obama failed to withdraw troops within the 30 day period.
The War Powers Resolution’s purpose, states Bruce Ackerman, is to allow the President the sole power to create war in cases where there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States.” Well, for one the US was by no means in a national emergency. Two, the US was not attacked; in fact the US was the aggressors in this situation. Although the War Powers Resolution seems like an okay idea, because its intention is to protect the US, it seems as though it has altered the Constitutional authority of the President to such a degree that he can make a unilateral decision regarding war!
If you ask me, this is a step towards danger. How did President Obama justify this as being okay? He stated that there weren’t US ground troops, thus Americans were at little risk. What do I refute? Aren’t all war efforts shifting towards the technological route with more “remote controlled” operations? Meaning, the encounter with Libya is no different than any modern war-they are all dangerous. In addition, if, as President Obama claims, the interaction is so low scale, then why, within the first two months of operation, has the US spent over $700 million?
There are many things wrong with this situation. Something screams out unconstitutional.
The president should not have the power to solely decided whether to send troops into a war or not, especially if it is a war that the United States should not be apart of. Congress has the power to decide if the United States should go to war or not, not the president, goes against law. Even if the War Powers Resolution gives the president the ability to go to war if the United States is in a state of national emergency, the main thing is that we were not in a state of national emergency. And if the president lied about there not being ground troops there when there really is, then I would say that is lying under oath, which is also against the law. I agree that the government is gathering to much power and needs to be checked.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you guys. while I can see and understand the point that in times of need there is a call for quick decisive action, I think it's potential for abuse can be detrimental. You brought up the Libya example and I think that illustrates this absolutely perfectly. Libya was not a state of national emergency, and it is still arguable that the reasons for participating in this conflict are vague at best. I think that the most harm that this bill does is allow the president for a short while to bypass public scrutiny and hide his or her actions behind an opaque veil keeping the citizens at arms length as to what actually is going on. The idea of public scrutiny is imperative for the democratic process and engages the citizens in government thus enlightening and raising their citizenship, but by being able to avoid it this grants the president innumerable power in acts of war. The president can leave out specific details and avoid giving any real explanation until after the act is committed while the representatives we sent to speak for us never get the chance to even speak. Let's not forget how the last Caesar of Rome who had been granted the power to suspend democracy in times of emergency never gave the power back.
ReplyDeleteI understand where the concern comes from as far as the American public being worried about how much power their President has. It can seem a little unnerving when the President goes off to a conflict of his own counseling and without consent of Congress. I feel, however, that the President was acting in the best interests of the country. Simply getting Congress' approval would not have changed the reasons we were there or the funding available to our troops. It would only have dispelled the uneasy feelings the public had toward the campaign. Yes the President may have too much power at his command because it is entirely possible that he may become misguided and use that power for the wrong purposes. I feel as if the President, valuing his position of power, would not go into a conflict without assuming that it was for the greater good because as is commonly stated, those with power are only afraid to lose it. The President would not enter a conflict that he though might endanger his position as head of the Executive branch.
ReplyDelete