Discussion (6)
Grab this poll for your site
Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.
Sponsored
More in News & Politics
- Does barring CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House threaten press freedom in the U.S.? · 3 votes
- Should the U.S. president be able to fire the Federal Reserve chair? · 3 votes
- Should the U.S. ban the sale of assault-style rifles? · 3 votes
- What should Trump’s proposed “AI Force” prioritize? · 4 votes
Personally I'd like to see a constitutional amendment which prohibits and branch for delegating its authority or responsibility to another branch. That being said there need to be accommodations made for low level conflict, an cases requiring rapid action (9/11 comes to mind and of course invasion/ nuclear attack), there congress could have a standing authorization.
You’d think the separation of powers already covers this. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case with this Congress. I'm not sure what the Republican party stands for anymore.
The War Powers Act gives the president flexibility to react to emergent situations while demanding Congressional notification within 48 hours and Congressional approval after 60 days. The problem is not the War Powers Act, it is a flaccid, impotent Congress unwilling to assert its Constitutional authority in Article I.
Completely agree. Guardrails / checks and balances only work if there's the will to enforce them. It's disheartening how we've come up short on that front through the Trump era. I hope this is a phase we learn from as a country rather than precedents we normalize.
What is lacking is a way for a significant minority (say 30%-40%) to bring judicial prosecution (an attorney general of the congress)
There are times it's important that POTUS has the option, but with clear boundaries and time limits. Large scale and long-term commitments need the guardrails of Congress.