New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard - War - The Constitution

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/)

- Political Discussion (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/political-discussion.html)

- - War - The Constitution - Do We Need an Amendment? (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/74671-war-constitution-do-we-need-amendment.html)

War - The Constitution - Do We Need an Amendment?

This site says it pretty well and concise to start:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...randtreaty.htm

Huge topic but after something PressCoverage said in a post I'm wondering why none of the candidates are offering the idea to amend War powers. An olive branch to the public? I know the President cannot do it but Congress can if asked. I think the public would agree something needs to be done to stop the next Bush while keeping our country safe. What do you think?

>>>Leave it alone and get Congress to do their job next time?
They do share in the blame IMO.

>>>Congress should make an Amendment ... not to gain power
but to at least add another layer of checks and balances.
Near impossible to get 2/3's to do it but now is the best chance we have.

>>>The G.O.P. will never cede Presidential powers ... the democrats perhaps
would consider it ... will the majority needed always be blocked by the G.O.P. or could the moderate Republicans be swayed?

>>>Stupid idea FBN you are dreaming?

Quote:

War and Treaty Powers
The issue: How have the war and treaty powers in the Constitution been interpreted?Introduction War Powers of President

The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.

The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers. Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court. (Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)