Pros And Cons Of War Power Resolution

War Power Resolution: A Failure
The United States has a developed government system that composes three separate branches which cooperate with each other; however in some particular areas such as war powers, there are conflicting ideas about which branch must have the most power. The constitution does not make a clear statement about that, and there are many different interpretations about what is implied in the constitution. Throughout the history, the country experienced many wars and sometimes blamed the president for the consequences of the wars. After the Vietnam War, the Congress made a resolution of War Powers which reminds that the Congress has the authority to declare war. War Power Resolution seems to have failed, because the result

Many of the people who argue from different perspectives focus on the key words in the constitution to make their arguments stronger. John Yoo contends that declaring war is the mechanism of authorization as it is stated in the constitution. Thus, the president is commander in chief whose purpose is to control the war after the decision is made. He tries to make his argument more clear by showing that Congress is the “sole authority to engage the nation in war” (Yoo).I disagree with Yoo’s argument because being commander in chief of the armed forces is a significant authority; moreover the constitution gives the authority to the president to send soldiers to foreign countries in case there is an urgent situation that may require the armed forces. In addition to that, Turner claims that in the original constitution the term. "to make War" was used which gives essentially all powers related to war beyond the actual command of troops, as had been the case under the Articles of Confederation. But on August 17, 1787, James Madison moved to amend the language to give Congress only the power "to declare war." After Rufus King observed that "make" war might give Congress some role in the conduct of war, which was "an executive function" (Turner). The framers were aware that the executive branch should be used effectively to be victorious in war.
Furthermore,

I argue that an independent president is a lot more useful in case of war. For instance, there was an ongoing discussion among Hamilton and Madison regarding the president’s authority in war and “History has demonstrated that Hamilton's vision of a strong and independent president in the field of foreign policy has prevailed.”