| Problem over the war powers is one of the vexed key problems between American President and Congress for a long time. Conflicts between American President and Congress over the war powers is bom of Constitutional ambiguity and uncertainty, which has been holding momentous Constitutional tension and intense struggle, and which has been increasing new contents along with the changing of the Constitution and historical context. Conflicts between American President and Congress over the war powers have been in existence during the whole course of American history.As far as the division of the war powers in the Constitution is concerned, the Founders attempted to establish an effective check and balance between the President and Congress and prevent the U. S. from entering wars because of the unilateral authority, or that the abuse of war powers causes military autarchy and tyranny, and endangers freedom and the institutions of democracy themselves. Therefore the Founders' intent concerning the construction of war powers is very definite. However, because the articles on the division of war powers in the Constitution are very concise and cause ambiguity, the Founders' intent is not very definite in many respects. In that case, the President and Congress had both competing opportunities of war powers.Over the two centuries since 1789, Presidents have been increasingly grabbing war powers by all means. Although the Constitution does not expressly direct the President to protect American life and property in foreign countries, Presidents have sent U. S. forces abroad for that purpose or others on many occasions in the absence of a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization of Congress. Presidents make time boundaries of war period more flexible and vaguer to expand the war powers. Presidents take military actions before Congressional actions; after hostilities have ceased Presidents retain many wartime powers by means of the demobilization powers.According to the Constitution, the Presidents are only able to take defensive military actions instead of offensive ones, unless the Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization. After World War II because American nationalinterests extended all over the world and the U.S. undertook extensive military and international commitments, the President expanded the war powers by means of bilateral and multilateral defense treaties, executive policy statements and communiques or by expanding the geographic sweep of present-day defensive wars. No longer did the President confine the notion of defensive war to military actions on American continental boundaries. Accordingly, the idea of defensive war took quantum jump.A truism of modern Presidency is that the war powers slipped virtually wholly from Congressional grasp and almost and completely were controlled by the President. The root cause, in the first place, lies in that the combination of the Presidency and war characteristics impaired the Congressional restraining mechanism to the President. The characteristics of the Presidency are more suitable for war decision. The war precedents the President established not only construed ambiguity on the war powers but also had important referential effect on war decision hi the future. Military actions the President took by means of the powers of enforcing the law at will filled in the blanks of the war powers. The President has already become a key lawmaker and an executive in the war field.Secondly, Congressional submissions and supports accelerated the steady expansion of the war powers of the President. As a result of its own weaknesses, Congress had to yield to the President's excluding Congress from war decision. Congressmen usually replaced the detailed understandings towards military actions with a kind of idealism. When the Presidential military actions were in accordance with their idealism, Congressmen supported them. Even though they did not approve of the Presidential actions, Congressmen inevitably asked Congress for all-out s... |
