Once oral arguments are concluded and a verdict has been reached, you are asked to write the opinion for one group of supreme court justices: you can choose which side of the argument to support. read this article that argues in support of congress's position and this article that argues in support of the president's position. using this data and the scenario discussed above, write a 250-word essay declaring whether or not the war powers act works within the constitutional authority of congress. cite evidence to support your claim, and use examples from the scenario to illustrate your points. review the process section below for researching and writing your essay.

The power to wage war within the constitutional system of the United States is only one aspect of the tension between the President and Congress. Both fight to expand their influence on the political conduct of the country. In this matter, the Constitution is vague and its interpretation has caused some conflicts; however, the political regime that  she consecrates gives the President more expeditious mechanisms and flexibility to make their influence prevail in front of Congress.

The president of the United States "has the constitutional power not only to counterattack against any person, organization or State suspected of being involved in terrorist attacks against the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of hosting or supporting those organizations." It is a "constitutional power", which was "collected by Congress" as "inherent to the Executive" on September 14, 2001, just three days after the 9/11 attacks. This is possible without requesting authorization from the congress. As happened when Barak Obama, in March 2011, ordered to bomb Libya.

It is true that Section Eight of Article One of the Constitution specifies that the Congress (formed by the Senate and the House of Representatives) will have, among other powers, the "declare war (...) and adopt rules concerning to the capture of lands and waters ". But it is also true that the text does not specify what a "war" is. For this reason, some other conflicts are considered "military confrontations", but have been authorized by Congress, such as Vietnam, the Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq and the Afghanistan War.

The War Powers Act does work with the constitutional authority of the Congress. The War Powers Act is a federal law intended to check the president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. That means the president can’t send the U.S. Armed Forces into action without notifying the Congress. The Congress would either have to give the president a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF)or a declaration of war by the United States. In the situation that we are talking about, the president didn’t notify the Congress that he was sending the U.S. Armed forces over to the Middle East. He said that it was no point of notifying the Congress because he was not trying to declare war on the country. He still didn’t get the authorization for military force to send the troops over there. So, in this case, I think the the court would side with the Congress, because the president basically disobeyed the whole War powers act and didn't consult the Congress about the decision.

hello,

  i would that it was because no matter how hard people worked everyone would be paid the same, witch it was a that the russian to rule.

have a great day