Faith Spraktes

Political Science 1100

Alan Chandler

3/31/17

Should the President Have Unilateral War Powers?

Since the time of George Washington, one of the great debates in America is whether or

not the President should have unilateral, or independent war powers. Does the President need to

consult with Congress before declaring war or does he have the power to do so alone?

Something many US citizens dont understand is whether or not their president has the power to

conduct military operations and run foreign affairs.

A reason this is such a big issue is that throughout the years several presidents have

interpreted differently the emergency war-making powers. For example, President Jefferson in

1801 ordered his navy to seize the ships of Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean, then much

later when President Truman, without any congressional declarations, said America would fight

in Korea. Now on the other hand, more recently President Obama has stated in a speech that he

has consulted with Congress and others during the War on Terror.

There are two articles presented here where we are able to learn more about both sides of

this argument. First, John C. Yoo argues that it is the Presidents constitutional right and

authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and the nations supporting them. He

states that all three branches of the Federal Government Congress, the Executive, and the

Judiciary agree that the President has broad authority to use military force abroad, including

the ability to deter future attacks. Second, President Barack Obama, while giving a speech at

the National Defense University at Fort McNair, explains that while in his presidency he has
made concentrated efforts to increase consultations with Congress to better the United States

ability in being successful in fighting terrorism. Both are convincing arguments and brought

forth crucial points for each sides.

First John C. Yoo has a very convincing argumentative article that the President should

not only have ultimate war powers in time of war but that it is his constitutional right. He states:

The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted

the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military

force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the president shall be

Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the

several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. He is further

vested with all of the executive Power and the duty to execute the laws.

Mr. Yoo does have an excellent point. Some of the Presidents constitutional powers are

Commander-in Chief, Chief Diplomat and Crisis Manager. While Mr. Yoo does mention often

that the President is Commander-in Chief, he does not explain that with that comes the War

Powers Act. This states that the President must consult with Congress first, notify the US in 48

hours and there is a 60 day limit. This article was also quite biased. Mr. Yoo mentions the

opposing side once, very briefly saying Some commentators have read the constitutional text

differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole

authority to decide whether to make war. His argument seemed very aggressive as well, adding

more to the bias. Although Mr. Yoo had a very compelling argument he failed to make it un-

biased and mention some important factors of the Constitution.

 President Obama simply stated facts and truths instead of an argument. His speech was

unbiased and calm. He had strong logos, ethos, and pathos by using the example of 9/11 and

other terrorist acts. President Obama stated This was a different kind of war. No armies came to

our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to

kill as many civilians as they could. And so our nation went to war. In his speech President

Obama says I have called on Congress to fully fund war efforts, pass laws and engage them

in many efforts. Something important President Obama said was:

Americas actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress

overwhelming authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law,

the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are

at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if

we did not stop them first. So this is a just war a war waged proportionally, in last

resort, and in self-defense.

This is an excellent statement to argue the side that the President should not have independent

war powers. President Obama does well in explaining the importance of having a united

Congress and President for a safer America, appealing to his audience and remaining un-biased

throughout.

Personally, I think the President should have war powers, but not unilateral powers. I

agree with Mr. Yoo that as Commander-in Chief the President does have a constitutional right to

have war powers. Mr. Yoo explained that the historical record shows that the United States

frequently employs Armed Forces outside of the United States and that 125 out of 200 of these

occasions the President acted without prior authorization from Congress. But I do think that it

should comply with the War Powers Act so one person does not have too much power. I also
agree with a lot of what President Obama said. Something that really struck me was when he

said:

All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact in

sometimes unintended ways the openness and freedom on which our way of life

depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to

Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists

without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

I think that in regards to national safety, the President should have war powers but Congress

needs to be there as well to support him in these decisions, especially in moments of crisis where

there may not be time to meet with Congress. They should also be able to reason with him if

need be. If Congress were to prevent a president from acting, it divides the House and the

country, and a divided house cannot stand.

 Works Cited

McKenna, George, and Stanley Feingold. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 61-74. Print.