Should presidents have the authority to act without Congressional authorization, or Congressional authorization?
Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution provides that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Historically, Congress and the president have interpreted the meaning of the words, “executive Power,” differently. For Congress, “executive Power” is defined by the list of presidential powers in Article II, Section 2; for presidents, “executive Power” refers to powers in addition to those enumerated in Article II, Section 2. In particular, presidents have interpreted “executive Power” to mean that the president can act without the consent of the Congress when necessary to protect national security. Congress, on the other hand, has argued that an unchecked president creates the risk of abuse of presidential authority.
Which interpretation is correct? Should presidents have the authority to act without Congressional authorization when necessary for the nation’s security, or should the president seek Congressional authorization before acting in order to preserve Constitutional checks and balances?
Please choose one of the below statements and argue your point. Make sure to write at least 450 words and NO PLAGIARISM PLEASE!!
Expansive View
If you believe that the president ought to be able to take action without notifying the Congress, explain why by responding to this thread.
Restrictive View
If you do not believe that the president ought to be able to take action without notifying the Congress, explain why by responding to this thread.