| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "WAR POWERS ACT": |
|
|
The War Powers Act, 2005.
This paper discusses that the War Powers Act, which places restrains on the president of the U.S.
780 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 5 sources, APA, £ 19.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the War Powers Act states that the president as the commander-in-chief has the power to introduce the armed forces into any hostilities or into an imminent introduction to hostilities; however, these powers must be exercised by the president only under certain specific circumstances, such as a terrorist attack. The author points out that the president is restricted by the War Powers Act because the president is not able to use military force without the proper congressional authority and other similar authorizations. The paper concludes that, although at times the president is indeed checked by the War Powers Act, for the most part, he is free to make emergency decisions for the welfare of the country.
From the Paper
"Although it is also a fact that the Act as such dose not impose restrictions on the President with regard to authorizing military deployment in trouble ridden areas, and so on, the War Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. && 1541-1548 as such, has no purpose nor does it have the effect of modifying or changing the president's already existing powers. It does, however, impose certain restrictions with regard to procedure, that is, when issues of consultation and the presidential reporting of certain actions come into the picture. In fact, the War Powers Resolution also gives the President the power to terminate armed forces that have been deployed in foreign lands, but with the concurrent resolution of the Congress."
| |
|
The War Powers Act of 1973, 2007.
This paper examines the War Powers Act that determines the entry of the United States into war or hostilities.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the War Powers Act of 1973 aimed to define specifically and clearly the processes and steps in waging war. This Act required two factors before the declaration or during the continuance of warfare; the consent of Congress and of the President. The paper describes the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President in declaring war or involving the United States' Army in any hostilities. The paper discusses how U.S. Presidents have invoked the War Powers Act in the past, declaring military action without informing Congress. The paper discusses how the War Powers Act was again in the limelight after the 9-11 incidents.
From the Paper
"Several times throughout history, the war powers of the President have been put in question. "In Ex Parte Milligan, the Court found unconstitutional Lincoln's order authorizing trial by a military tribunal of Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer accused of stirring up support for the Confederacy. The Court ruled that civilians must be tried in civilian courts, even during time of war, as long at least as the civilian courts are open and operating. The Court also found the President lacked authority to declare martial law in Indiana. (Linder 2006)""
| |
|
The War Powers Act, 2002.
An overview of this 1973 Act which determines the activity of the U.S. military.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 11 sources, £ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the War Powers Act (1973). The Act defines the terms in which US Armed Forces can be employed. It was passed, as the war in Vietnam seemed to be expanding without Congressional approval. Its implications in the thirty years since are also considered.
| |
|
?Presidential War Power?, 2002.
This paper discusses the War Powers Act of 1917 based on Louis Fisher?s book ?Presidential War Power?.
3,015 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reports the history of the power of the presidents to declare a state of emergency and to wage war based on the book ?Presidential War Power? by Louis Fisher.This paper explains that the concept of presidential War Powers stands in contrast with the ideas of the framers of the Constitution, who believed that Congress and the President should make the decision to wage war jointly. The author reports that Fisher argues that the War Powers Resolution needs revisiting; that Congress is never conferred with when the United States is involved in military actions.
From the Paper
"International policy continued to be dictated by Congress: although the President was responsible for the army and navy. In some cases, the President would maintain an activist foreign policy, setting an agenda that would be succinctly approved by Congress. This was the case during the Mexican-American War, when President James K. Polk ?notified Congress that ?war exists.?? Calhoun, the most prominent Carolinian politician of the day, was one of the few dissenters. His response was: ?I distinguish between hostilities and war, and God forbid that, acting under the Constitution, we should ever confound one with the other.? (Fisher 32) That members of Congress might even remain this level of circumspection even when the continental United States was attacked by an invading foreign power gives one some impression of the keen grip Congress wished to maintain on war-making authority."
| |
|
The War Powers Act, 2005.
Analyzes the War Powers Act of 1973.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the War Powers Act of 1973, which was passed by Congress in response to the massive deployment of American troops to Vietnam in the nineteen-sixties. This deployment had begun in 1965 in the aftermath of the passage of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and had continued to escalate for four years. The paper shows that by 1969, more than five-hundred-thousand American soldiers were fighting in Southeast Asia and U.S. military commanders were demanding the deployment of two-hundred thousand additional troops.
| |
|
The War Powers Act: An Analysis of Legislative Inanity, 2000.
An opinion piece as to why the War Powers Act is inane, empty and clearly an unconstitutional piece of legislation, the epitome of poorly constructed and inadequately thought out and executed legislation, and should be repealed.
945 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 3 sources, £ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The joint resolution "concerning the war powers of Congress and the President" was passed on November 7, 1973 above a Presidential veto; Congress made the decision to override the veto of President Nixon, a rare legislative occurrence. Such unified support among Congress indicates that the purpose of the act was primarily the self-aggrandizement of Congress, at the expense of the executive branch, compromising the balance of power. The War Powers Act is an inane, empty and clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation, the epitome of poorly constructed and inadequately thought out and executed legislation. It is frequently skirted and is most unclear. Further, it obfuscates responsibility and accountability of government officials. In the interest of the nation, the War Powers Act should be repealed."
| |
|
War Powers Act of 1973, 1996.
Examines historical background & effect of law & argues it gives to president too much power to send troops abroad without consulting Congress.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 4 sources, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Throughout the last several decades the power of the presidency in relation to the other branches of government has grown enormously both at home and abroad. This research examines the recent expansion of presidential authority in send American troops into combat situations in foreign affairs. Presidential usurpations of military power will be discussed, with special attention given to the relevance and the constitutionality of the 1973 War Powers Act.
Presidential War Powers Surprise Congress
The United States is now well entrenched in attempting to aid the United Nations forces in Bosnia bring that region's conflict to a close. It is not at all clear whether the United Nations, even with American support, will succeed. And even if it appears that peace is at hand, it is not at all clear whether..."
| |
|
War Powers Act, 1991.
A legal analysis of the 1973 resolution covering the president's use of military overseas including background, purpose, international law and specific provisions.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 10 sources, £ 77.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The purpose of this section is to discuss the legality of President Bush's deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia with regard to case law. Discussion includes international law as well as domestic law.
Analysis
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution was to reaffirm the Constitution by removal of the decision of war and peace from the hands of a single individual (the President) and insurance of a collaborative decision between the President and Congress. The War Powers Resolution states that Presidents can send troops into "imminent hostilities" only if Congress declares war, passes a law allowing the deployment, or if there is an attack on U.S. territory or armed forces. The resolution states that the President must inform Congress within 48 ours when American..."
| |
|
Presidential Powers In Foreign Policy, 1987.
Discusses the changing role & power of chief executive since WWII & Cold War in Vietnam, Latin America, Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra affair and War Powers Act.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This study will examine the powers of the President in the realm of foreign policy.
As Mc Cracken writes in The President?s Powers, ?Many observers trace the recent trend toward presidential prominence in foreign affairs to President Franklin Roosevelt and World War II? (34).
Although, as Mc Cracken goes on to point out, the President has exercised considerable power in foreign affairs since George Washington?s reign, it was indeed not until World War II and the Cold War that the President has been granted or has simply taken the kind of control in foreign affairs which has resulted in catastrophes which have scarred every President since that time.
As Mc Cracken adds, it was the Vietnam War era which brought into the forefront the struggle between Congress and the(...)"
| |
|
The Persian Gulf War, A War Without Formal Declaration, 2002.
Looks at how the United States government engaged in the Persian Gulf War and several other wars after WWII without officially declaring war.
1,208 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 28.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the history of U.S. military engagement since the end of WWII, with particular emphasis on the Persian Gulf War of 1990. It points out that Congress has not formally declared war since December 11, 1941, against Germany and that, during the course of the last several decades in United States history, the citizens of the U.S. have been continually forced into war without a formal declaration of war supported by the U.S. Congress. The paper then discusses the War Powers Act, which has made it possible for Congress to avoid making actual declarations of war while still permitting major military engagements such as the Persian Gulf War.
From the Paper
"Congress has not formally declared war since December 11, 1941 against Germany in response to a formal Declaration of War by Germany against the U.S. (Paul, 2002). When Congress does formally declare war, a task that requires small effort on the part of representatives, an enemy is clearly defined and the task at hand is readily made clear. A clear cut victory is also expected as was the case of the Declaration of war against Germany and Japan. During the course of the last several decades in United States history, the citizens of the U.S. have been continually forced into war without a formal declaration of war supported by the U.S. Congress. The most recent example prior to 2003 of this was the war started in the Persian Gulf. Such action taken by the president of the U.S. exemplifies the pomposity and overbearing authority the president has placed upon himself over the citizens of this country."
| |
|
535 to 1: The Odds Congress Can Recover its Constitutional Authority, 2000.
This essay is an in-depth discussion of the presidential War Powers Act.
1,340 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the War Powers Act and the constitutional authority to make war. The author concludes that, while flawed, the War Powers Act is absolutely necessary to curb presidential war-making power.
From the paper:
"The president and Congress have often battled over foreign policy issues, especially those relating to war. Article II of the Constitution makes the president commander in chief, responsible for the operation of the military in the field. Article I places the responsibility for declaring war solely in the hands of the Congress. This should be seen not only as giving Congress the power to make war but the responsibility to prevent unnecessary conflict. This arrangement was rarely challenged until after World War II. In 1950, Harry Truman used a United Nations resolution as justification for sending American troops to Korea and began a half century of presidents side-stepping congressional power to prevent war."
| |
|
War in Iraq War on Terror, 2007.
A discussion of how the war in Iraq and war on terror became linked as election issues.
2,646 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 13 sources, MLA, £ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author argues that the war in Iraq was utilized as a persuasive tool to win an election, in which the war was linked to the more global and less definable "war on terrorism." The author further contends that in the 2004 presidential elections the voters were seeking security, and therefore they linked the two issues. This paper demonstrates that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are not connected and in fact contraindicated for the long term safety of the US, specifically with regard to future acts of terrorism. Salient quotes from primary and secondary sources are used to support the author's thesis.
From the Paper
"The importance and reality of this link are now being questioned at every level. People, in both high and low places are questioning the validity of the connection and asking if this aggressive move, on the part of the US, even in the face of much international opposition was in fact appropriate to improve security in the US and her interests all over the world. The political positioning that has become increasingly obvious has undermined the faith of individuals in the nature and necessity of the War in Iraq, as people feel they were sold a bill of goods, rather than leveled with in regards to the strategic importance of the Iraq in the global war on terrorism in both the short and log term. In fact this work argues that the only connection between the war on terrorism and the War on Iraq is that the later has and will continue to serve to increase terrorist activities and actions against the US, no matter how the government spins it."
| |
|
A Taxonomy of Power and Power-Compliance Gaining Strategies, 2001.
A discussion of the classification system defined by researchers French and Raven in 1959.
2,730 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 9 sources, MLA, £ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses French and Raven's taxonomy of five power sources available for gaining compliance: Coercive power, reward-based power, legitimate power, expert power and referent power. The paper defines each kind of power, giving examples from laboratory studies, advertising, corporate theory and gender-based linguistic studies. The paper includes a discussion not only on the ways of obtaining power, but also on the forms of resistance to that power.
From the Paper
"Perhaps the most obvious definitionally and the crudest method in Raven?s taxonomy would be that of coercive power. Simply put, coercive power is the capacity to dispense punishments to those who do not comply with requests or demands. Consider, for instance, one of the most famous experiments ever conducted dealing with the exercise of power. In the study conducted by Stanley Milgram, subjects were recruited from ?a broad spectrum of socioeconomic and educational levels? to participate in a study of ?memory.? The subjects were then put into pairs, a teacher and a learner. The learner had to administer punishment through the use of electroshocks whenever the subject answered incorrectly. Of course, the learner was really a plant, a psychology student provided by Milgram. But the individual administering the punishment did not know that. So far as he or she knew, he or she had the ability to administer coercive power. Much to the shock and horror of the public when Milgram made his findings known, the ?teachers? did so to the point where the ?learners? protested that the shocks were becoming painful. This transpired as the level of electricity rose to 120 volts, then to 180 volts, to 300 where the subject demanded release, then to 330, when the learner became silent. (The actor playing the role of the experimenter told the subjects they had to go on, that there was no permanent tissue damage being done to the learners, and that he took ?full responsibility.?) Sixty-five percent of Milgram?s subjects conducted the experiment to the bitter end."
| |
|
The Significance of Relative Power Over Absolute Power, 2006.
An explanation as to why an emphasis on relative power in international relations is more important than absolute power.
1,313 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look at relative power versus absolute power, from both realist and liberal perspectives. The paper uses Canada and China as examples. The paper concludes that it is better for the state to emphasize a realist perspective rather than a liberalist one.
From the Paper
"States have always been interacting with one another on a systemic level. According to realists, because states are self-interested, they worry about power of which there are two different kinds. Realists value relative power more than absolute power. Absolute power refers to a state's strive towards flourishing economically, and militarily. On the other hand, relative power refers to a state's emphasis on its relationship with other states around it, watching surrounding states and planning accordingly. However, unlike realists, liberals do not value power as highly and look to gains as being more important. Absolute gains follow a non-zero-sum mentality, which means that a state's gains are infinite. One state's gain does not have to be another state's loss as it could be in the case of relative gains. As a result, what is more important for a state to emphasize: a realist's view of power or the liberal view of gains?"
|
|
|
