Federalism and Constitutional Debates - Coursework Example

Federalism and Constitutional Debate Introduction Federalism refers to a form of government defined by constitutionally defined sovereignty between a national government and state governments. The United States of America adopted federalism in an effort to ensure that democracy reigned in the country. The constitution gives clear guidelines on the limits of power to be exercised by the national government and by the states. The power exercised by the states is depicted by the congress. With bicameralism in Congress, there is evidence of equal representation of all the states. This is one of the key principles defining federalism and ensuring that an evident division of power does exist. In the recent past, there have been numerous constitutional debates, which have challenged the principles of federalism as outlined in the constitution. One of the critical constitutional debates concerns the war powers. The constitution highlights that there is a shared responsibility between the president who is the executive of the national government and the congress, which represents the state power. However, numerous debates concerning this issue have existed in the recent past. This paper will present a critical analysis of the issue and highlight that the presidents of the United States have not overreached their constitutional powers in their ventures to ensure military interventions. Arguments in Support of the President’s Authority For a long time, there has been a controversy on whether American presidents require an outright authorization by the congress before they can commit American troops to any mission. Some have argued that the constitution makes it clear that it is a shared responsibility, which accords both the president and the congress some power. However, modern interpretation of the constitutional clause, which discusses this issue, has seen presidents such as Barrack Obama committing American troops without seeking the approval of congress. Article I of the constitution accords congress the power to ‘declare war’. Moreover, the congress is tasked with ensuring that military operations receive the required funding. On the other hand, article II indicates that identifies the president as the ‘commander in chief of the armed forces’. This article defines a fundamental aspect of federalism in the United States. However, despite the existence of the constitution for many years, there are still numerous debates surrounding this issue (Telman, 2007). The concern of many people has been the fact that a president can commit the American troops and only present reports to the congress without seeking authorization from the congress. For example, the recent debate has surrounded military ventures led by president Obama. In one of his ventures, president Obama actively conducted an intervention mission in Libya. Apparently, he sought no authorization from the congress. Later, he presented reports of the intervention to the congress. In my opinion, the president was acting in accordance with the authority accorded to him by the constitution. This is because his intervention to Libya conformed to the responsibilities of a president of ensuring the existence of US foreign relations and being the commander in chief, it was in place for him to announce the intervention. Evidently, the individuals who framed the American constitution were well aware that times of war needed swiftness in decision-making. Since the president has a critical responsibility in foreign affairs, it is constitutionally right for a president to make certain decisions without any form of authorization from the congress. During such times, involving the congress would waste precious time delaying decision-making. Moreover, the term ‘declare war’ did not have the same meaning that many people perceived today when the constitution was being framed in 1787. Therefore, presidents have the power to conduct foreign relations without authorization from the congress (Telman, 2007). Counter Arguments On the other hand, individuals who support authorization from the congress have highlighted that American presidents usually overreach their authority. According to this school of thought, there is a reason why the constitution indicated shared authority concerning the issue. The responsibility of the congress during interventions involving the American troops cannot be underestimated because it is the role of the congress to declare war and ensure that there is adequate funding towards such ventures. Those supporting congress authorizations argue that the framers of the constitution targeted to limit the powers of the president in a bid to prevent dictatorial regimes (Ohaegbulam, 2007). Many people in this school of thinking understand the term ‘declare war’ as denoting starting a war. However, a close analysis of the use of the terms during the period when the constitution was framed indicates that ‘declare was’ meant presenting a diplomatic notice concerning any emerging changes that surround the relations between nations. Apparently, ‘declare war’ as used I the constitution did not refer to starting a war. Although many Americans expressed their opposition to the actions depicted by many presidents, they rely on Article I of section 8 alone instead of incorporating other section of the constitution. A close consideration of section 10 of the article there is an outright indication that states are not required to wage war or participate in war without authorization of the congress. The fact that the congress has a critical role in waging war by funding the military events reveals that it has a critical role to play in waging war. This does not mean that the president should stop exercising his authority as the commander in chief. However, it highlights the role of effective collaboration from the president and the congress (Lacroix, 2014). Evaluation of the Argument Evidently, the president should be allowed to exercise his authority as the commander in chief and conduct his foreign relations responsibilities. This is because as an individual, he can be able to make decisions swiftly during critical times. Moreover, the constitution framers were well aware of certain situations when relying on the congress would take too much time. Therefore, president acts in accordance with the constitution by ensuring that critical decisions are made at the right time. If that responsibility required authorization from the congress, many barriers to effective decision making with each member of the congress promoting personal political interests, the nation would be unable to respond to emergencies (Gluck, 2014). Conclusion The debate surrounding the powers of the president and those of the congress in issues related to waging war have created multiple controversies in the recent past. Evidently, the controversies have sought to challenge the principles defining federalism. Interpretation of Article I and Article II, which outline the powers of the president and those of the congress during war times, have caused a heated debate. In my opinion, the president can act by committing the American troops in accordance with his powers of conducting foreign relations and his position as a chief executive. The views exhibited by those supporting congress authorizations are based on a wrong perception Article I, section 8 of the constitution. References Gluck, A. R. (2014). Our [National] Federalism. Yale Law Journal, 123(6), 1996-2043. Lacroix, A. L. (2014). The Shadow Powers of Article I. Yale Law Journal, 123(6), 2044-2093. Ohaegbulam, F. (2007). Chapter 4: Presidential War Making. In , Culture of Deference (pp. 57-70). Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Telman, D. (2007). THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS POWER: DOES THE CONSTITUTION MATTER?: A Review of Peter Irons, War Powers: How the Imperial Presidency Hijacked the Constitution. Temple Law Review, 80245. Read More