Army fought frontier wars against Indian tribes. During the last half of the nineteenth century, the U.S. In some situations, the United States may be involved unilaterally or multilaterally in efforts to restore law and order in other nations. citizens and interventions to protect American lives and property during disorders in foreign nations. Presidents may order the evacuation of U.S. Presidents may order actions against politically unorganized pirates and bandits, drug smugglers, and terrorists that may involve limited incursion into another state or its airspace or territorial waters. Uses of force based on the commander in chief's power include gaining additional territory for the United States, such as Florida (actions of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams), the American Southwest (during the Mexican War), and Hawaii. With large numbers of American soldiers killed or wounded in pursuit of foreign policy goals, such actions raised serious questions of constitutionality. Uses of force in hostilities without congressional sanction in the twentieth century, however, have involved much wider operations against organized governments. Almost all use of force by presidents in the nineteenth century without a declaration of war involved minor incidents-mostly against pirates and bandits. Fewer than half of these instances involved prior legislative authorization. Outside the United States, presidents have used the armed forces without congressional declarations of war in more than 230 instances, relying on that constitutional prerogative. The most controversial constitutional issue involves presidential warmaking without a declaration from Congress, when presidents depend solely on their constitutional prerogative as commander in chief. As Lincoln discovered during the Civil War, the most important war power the president possesses is the power to hire and fire those commanders. Truman, set overall parameters, but tended to rely more on going through channels and trusting the judgment of their top commanders. Others, such as Woodrow Wilson and Harry S. They communicated directly with key theater commanders. Johnson, and George Bush, maintained close control over military operations, not only reviewing strategy but controlling the details of specific missions. Presidents are not expected to march at the heads of their armed forces. Presidents may also use the armed forces to maintain “the peace of the United States,” as several presidents in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did in enforcing district court injunctions against striking miners and railway workers. Domestically, this may mean using or threatening to use force to make sure that laws are faithfully executed, as George Washington did when he rode out at the head of a column of troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, as Andrew Jackson did in 1832 when he threatened to use force against South Carolina if it did not permit collection of the tariff, and as Abraham Lincoln did to end the secession of Southern states. May the president use force if he believed an attack were imminent use force without a declaration of war defend American lives and property abroad execute treaty obligations involving the armed forces or engage in “coercive diplomacy” to get leaders of other nations to accede to his wishes? The president's most important duty as commander in chief is to defend the United States, its territories and possessions and its armed forces, from attack. The Constitution (Article II, section 2) specifies that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” This language provides the president with constitutional powers over the armed forces, powers shared with Congress but the constitutional framework leaves several unsettling questions unanswered.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |