DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

The whole point of our three branch system is that the President is still just a man, and therefore should not hold ALL governmental power. So the act of declaring war lays with the congress. The POTUS can send troops into an area for set amounts of time, at the end of that time they must either be called home, or Congress must pass the resolution declaring we are now in a state of war.

No. And the War Powers Act which permits limited deployments should be tested for its Constitutionality. It's kind of in a gray zone for which emergencies may be warranted, but it would seem possible to get Congressional approval for action in emergencies (as we did in the wake of 9-11 for example) instead of simply granting the President an ability that he is not intended to have.

There is and should be a free hand for foreign policy and diplomacy only so far.

Bush received a (vague) Congressional mandate to do almost all of what he did.

Despite the imperial nature of the Presidency over the last few decades, very little of what happened during his administration wasn't signed off on by Congress.

Anytime that you give the POTUS alone the ability to declare war on anyone you no longer have a republic nor a democracy . . . You have a dictatorship.

Nope.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states:
"THE CONGRESS shall have power……To declare war….."

Doesn't mention the President in this Article anywhere.

No further explanation needed.

WHY SHOULDNT HE HAVE POWER TOO? HES THE PRESIDENT!

I thought the president did have that power.

"ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War……"

The War Powers Act authorizes certain military efforts to be undertaken without Congressional approval using the President's commander-in-chief role, but this law is recent, and hasn't yet been challenged for its Constitutionality (I would say it is unconstitutional).

Even so, it does not authorize a declaration of war without Congressional approval.

The president has the power to drop the nuclear bomb. I think THAT is enough power as it is.

If this is a reasonable basis of power, then how does this not affect the reasoning of papacy versus presidency?

Im not comparing it to anything, I was taught that the President has the power to drop the nuclear bomb, i learned that in Government. If he had the power to declair war and to drop the nuclear bomb then the checks and balances would have to be reorganized because the actions of one branch has to be watched by the other. Im not trying to go into a different subject. Im just saying that if the president were given the power to declair war then he would have to much power. thats what i say.

1) The President does not have authority to launch a nuclear strike pre-emptively, effectively issuing a declaration of war.
2) I'm noticing that here you seem to imply there's a very considerable amount of power whereas elsewhere you seem to think there is not. Hence I bring up the inconsistency by way of comparison.

ok your right on the first thing, but the president does have the final authority to drop the atomic bomb so Technicaly he does have the authority. And i dont understand the second thing you said.

As I understand the NCA on nuclear launches, the President has to have some one else approve final launches. He cannot just decide one day to fire on a country, even one we've already declared war on or which has attacked us with conventional military forces or surrogates. And also the military chain of command can launch if the President is killed in a nuclear strike, for example. He's not the final authority so much as the main one.

As for the second part… basically, if you're going to post things on a discussion topic as your considered opinions, then the same logic should appear if a similar topic comes up elsewhere. If it doesn't, people like me will wonder why that is.