Question

A.Imagine that the president has deployed forces to intervene in a civil war in the Middle East. The purpose of the deployment is to protect the civilians in a large city from an imminent attack by their own government. The president claims that this urgent use of military force falls within the powers of the presidency as commander in chief, but does not reach the level of involvement that requires Congress to declare war. The president does not formally consult with Congress before ordering military action and does not provide a report to Congress in a timely manner.

In response, the House Armed Services Committee declares that the president violated the War Powers Act, demands that the president remove the troops, and formally brings the case to the Supreme Court to force action from the president.

You are a justice on the Supreme Court preparing to hear the case. Start by writing down your initial reactions to the situation. Based on what you know of the War Powers Act, which branch appears to be in the right? What questions would you ask during oral arguments to try to get each side to explain its point of view?

B.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.

Answer 1

A. My underlying reactions: the president ought to have told Congress. He ought to have examined the alternatives with them before sending troops. The HouseArmed Services Committee ought to have talked about things in a superior manner as opposed to simply inside and out requesting things from the president. Congress is by all accounts justified since the War Powers Act requires the president to tell congress inside two days of sending US troops abroad. On the off chance that Congress doesn't approve this inside 60 days, the president must pull back the troops. He didn't converse with them, and afterward, he didn't tell them exceptionally before long.

B. The power to wage war inside the established arrangement of the United States is just a single part of the strain between the President and Congress. Both battles to extend their impact on the political direction of the nation. In this issue, the Constitution is obscure and its translation has caused a few clashes; in any case, the political system that she sanctifies gives the President progressively speedy instruments and adaptability to cause their impact to win before Congress.

The War Powers Act accomplishes work with the sacred authority of Congress. The War Powers Act is a government law planned to check the president's power to submit the United States to an armed clash without the assent of the U.S. Congress. That implies the president can't send the U.S. Armed Forces energetically without advising Congress. Congress would either need to give the president a Congressional approval for utilization of military power (AUMF)or an announcement of war by the United States. In the circumstance that we are discussing, the president didn't advise the Congress that he was sending the U.S. Armed forces over to the Middle East. He said that it was no reason for informing Congress since he was doing whatever it takes not to proclaim war on the nation. He despite everything didn't get the approval for military power to send the troops over yonder. Along these lines, for this situation, I figure the court would favor the Congress in light of the fact that the president fundamentally resisted the entire War powers act and didn't counsel the Congress about the choice.