Imagine that the president has deployed forces to intervene in a civil war in the Middle East. The purpose of the deployment is to protect the civilians in a large city from an imminent attack by their own government. The president claims that this urgent use of military force falls within the powers of the presidency as commander in chief, but does not reach the level of involvement that requires Congress to declare war. The president does not formally consult with Congress before ordering military action and does not provide a report to Congress in a timely manner.
In response, the House Armed Services Committee declares that the president violated the War Powers Act, demands that the president remove the troops, and formally brings the case to the Supreme Court to force action from the president.
You are a justice on the Supreme Court preparing to hear the case. Start by writing down your initial reactions to the situation. Based on what you know of the War Powers Act, which branch appears to be in the right? What questions would you ask during verbal arguments to try to get each side to explain its point of view?
In response, the House Armed Services Committee declares that the president violated the War Powers Act, demands that the president remove the troops, and formally brings the case to the Supreme Court to force action from the president.
You are a justice on the Supreme Court preparing to hear the case. Start by writing down your initial reactions to the situation. Based on what you know of the War Powers Act, which branch appears to be in the right? What questions would you ask during verbal arguments to try to get each side to explain its point of view?
Answers & Comments
Answer:
As a justice on the Supreme Court preparing to hear the case, my initial reactions to this situation would be one of concern for the protection of civilians in the Middle East, and a recognition of the complex and nuanced nature of this situation.
The War Powers Act is a federal law that limits the president's ability to deploy armed forces without the authorization of Congress. According to the Act, the president can introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances only by:
a declaration of war
specific statutory authorization
a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces
Based on this information, it appears that the president may have violated the War Powers Act by ordering military action without consulting with Congress or providing a report to Congress in a timely manner.
During verbal arguments, I would ask the following questions to try to get each side to explain its point of view:
To the president's legal team: What specific statutory authorization or national emergency did the president rely on to justify this military action, and why was it necessary to take action without consulting with Congress or providing a report to Congress in a timely manner?
To the House Armed Services Committee: What specific provisions of the War Powers Act do you believe the president violated, and how do you believe this military action endangers the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government?
To both sides: How do you believe this military action will protect the civilians in the Middle East, and what steps will be taken to ensure that the U.S. Armed Forces are not engaged in hostilities for an extended period of time without proper authorization from Congress?
It is important to consider all points of view and gather all the information available to make an informed decision.