subject
History, 05.10.2020 14:01 akamya21

Very few would argue with the claim that the President's role as Commander- in-Chief is the greatest formal power that a president possesses. Yet, in the
Constitution, only Congress has the authority to formally "declare war."
Presidents for the last 60-70 years have openly stated that they do not need
Congressional authorization to use the military to pursue America's interests on
the global stage. As proof, America has not formally declared war since WWII.
So, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghanistan, and now Syria have all
been military exercises, but not wars in the Constitutional sense.
Has the power of the President of the United States as Commander-in-Chief
exceeded constitutional boundaries and should those powers be curtailed,
given the constant state of war we find ourselves in? Or should the President's
military powers continue to expand to address the growing chaos in our world,
despite the Constitution or in congruence with the Constitution? Explain your
answer.

ansver
Answers: 1

Another question on History

question
History, 21.06.2019 18:40
How did king george iii react to the olive branch petition sent by the second continental congress?
Answers: 2
question
History, 21.06.2019 19:00
Nwhich period were most of the original british north american colonies founded?
Answers: 1
question
History, 22.06.2019 02:30
What is significant about the power that russian federal cities are granted?
Answers: 1
question
History, 22.06.2019 03:00
How and why did british north american colonists fight a revolution to create a constitutional republic, the united states of america?
Answers: 1
You know the right answer?
Very few would argue with the claim that the President's role as Commander- in-Chief is the greates...
Questions
question
Physics, 04.05.2020 22:36
question
Mathematics, 04.05.2020 22:36