The president of United States also acts as the Commander in Chief of its military. This gives the president the authority to command and use the troops as per his will. But does this makes him the supreme authority or is he constitutionally required to seek out Congress’ approval before taking any military actions abroad into imminent hostilities? I believe that as the Commander in Chief, the president is required to guide the military to achieve a win. But this does not give him the power to start a war or any other military action for that matter. The United States’ military is the best in the world with advanced weaponry capable of causing mass destruction. To give all that power to a man which he can use at his discretion is not right. Also, any military action will surely result in some kind of casualties. In war, both sides have to suffer. One man, even a president should not have the power to take an entire country to war and make it suffer the consequences. Restraints should put on a man who can harness such power. Congress and President both complement as well as balance each other’s authority. Hence, I strongly agree with that fact that president needs to seek congressional approval before he can initiate any military actions.
Reviewing the given resources, I have come to the conclusion that the strongest argument made against my point of view was made by Congressman Peter King where he says that the threat is too imminent. Congressional debates can be long and thwart the process. As the matter is of supreme importance going via Congress will hamper the process which can have adverse effects on the United States (3). Rest of the arguments defended the legality of the extent of the powers given to the president by the constitution. However, as Congressman Eliot Engle said, “The War Powers Act gives the president the latitude to strike first and then go to the congress within sixty days” (1). This gives the president the power to defend the country against any imminent danger and then go to the congress to explain the rationale behind his decisions. This clause does create a balance between the presidential power to start a military action and his accountability towards it. If a threat is imminent, it has to be responded to as early as possible. Delaying the response for taking congressional approval can prove to be catastrophic for the country.
Argument A is more persuasive.
Constitution clearly answers the statement in question. In section 8 of Article I of the constitution it is clearly written that the Congress has the power to call the militia for suppressing any insurrections and repelling invasions. Section 2 of Article II clearly states that although the president is Commander in Chief of the army and the Navy of the United States, he can only use those powers by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (1A). This means that the presidents needs the advice as well as consent of the senate to start any war or to take any military action which in its essence means that the president is constitutionally required to seek out Congress’ approval before taking any military actions abroad into imminent hostilities.
Works Cited
"Senators Debate the President's Power to Launch Fight against the Islamic State." PBS. PBS, 9 Sept. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.
"Should Obama Seek Congressional and Public Approval Before Action on Syria?" PBS. PBS, 30 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.
"The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.
