After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the U.S. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The resolution authorizes the president to undertake war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates without Congressional approval. Since 2001 the law has been used to approve military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Proponents argue that the law is necessary to give the President the powers to act quickly in order to prevent another terrorist attack on the U.S. Opponents argue that all U.S. military conflicts should have Congressional approval and this act has been used in military conflicts that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Military Congressional Approval
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9FJFF7F2yrs2Y
Doing whatever means necessary can mean using your allies for your countries benefit. At the end of the day, is it worth it?
@9FFHB8VLibertarian2yrs2Y
Whilst in war, if something is to happen like a threat made or another bombing on American soil, there is no time to lolli gag around we must do something to defend our nation.
@9F89MMP2yrs2Y
When the country is under attack you have few minutes to make a decision to fight back.it's in the presidents best interest to act quickly and not wait for congress.
@9F74MH82yrs2Y
Is see both ways yes the president should have the power to start wars but if it’s something not crazy serious right at this moment then go through Congress
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
The United States is not a monarchy. One man should not have the power to rob our nation’s cradles to feed the dogs of war.
@9F89MMP2yrs2Y
If we're being bombed or damage to infrastructure like 911 I'm sure you don't want to wait for congress.You want to defend yourself.
@9F9W9N32yrs2Y
If Yes, what about a decision a president will make that could jeopardize the safety of Americans by the possible breakout of war?
@9FBMC262yrs2Y
while the principle of congressional approval for military conflicts is essential for democratic oversight, opponents argue that it must be balanced with the need for timely and effective responses to emerging threats, especially when classified information and specialized knowledge are involved. The debate centers on finding the right balance between preserving democratic principles and ensuring national security.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, Congress should approve all military conflicts
@9FPVSQJ2yrs2Y
It is not congress's job to be the chief in command, and all decisions about the military themselves should be left the the president.
@9FBMC262yrs2Y
congressional approval for military conflicts emphasizes democratic principles and oversight, opponents argue that it may not always be practical or in the best interest of national security, particularly in emergency situations or those requiring a swift response.
@9Y22NFJPeace and Freedom8mos8MO
they should approve all military conflicts because if one day they attack our country we wont do anything and weill be dead.
@9F9GR5L2yrs2Y
I think the President, should have a little more lead-way to deploy military assests especially in times of conflict.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, we must use whatever means necessary to prevent another terrorist attack
@9FLDBB4 2yrs2Y
Top Disagreement
We should ensure that the rights outlined by the constitution and the powers given to the government are not misused and inadvertently trampling the constitution it wishes to protect.
@9FKZG9X2yrs2Y
We must do everything in our power to keep innocent citizens alive while preventing terrorist attacks
@9FLN36G2yrs2Y
we shouldn't get our selves into international affairs and use whatever cuz that means we can nuke someone again
Yes, but only in emergencies when an instant response is needed. Such operations shouldn’t last beyond 30 days without congressional authorization
@9JZH4LX1yr1Y
Yes, and in theory, as the most powerful person in the nation, the President can do whatever they want without anybody else’s approval
@9RXP9KX11mos11MO
Yes, Congress can vote to influence the president’s decision, but should not ultimately make it for them
@9FC9JN62yrs2Y
Yes and no, congress should have a say in some conflicts, only in the extreme should the president beable to authorize without congressional approval.
Interesting perspective you've got there, but let's consider this: The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war. It's not about some conflicts or extreme situations. It's about preserving the balance of power and preventing unilateral decisions that could plunge our nation into war. Remember Vietnam? It started as a limited engagement but escalated into a full-blown conflict with huge costs.
Now, how would you propose the line between 'extreme situations' and 'some conflicts' be drawn to prevent such a scenario from repeating?
@9D8GBQR2yrs2Y
Yes and drug and slave traffickers
Yes, but with reasonable cause
@9N92GYS1yr1Y
Yes, but only in emergencies when a quick response is needed. Such authorization should expire after 30 days without congressional approval
@9DC3244Republican2yrs2Y
The president has control over the military but should be watched over by congress so that president cannot become power hungry
While it's true that checks and balances are vital to prevent absolute power, there are situations that require rapid response where the usual congressional approval process can't keep pace. For instance, in the case of Osama Bin Laden's capture, swift action was needed, which wouldn't have been possible with a slow bureaucratic process. What do you think could be a middle ground solution to ensure checks and balances, yet also facilitate quick decision making when necessary?
@9GJ79J62yrs2Y
Man, don't ask me this. I don't even know how the government works. I'm practically an anarchist dude.
No, and we should slash military spending and stop trying to subjugate the world.
@9D6PL8H2yrs2Y
@9HB2K4V2yrs2Y
If it is an emergency the president should be allowed to and then still have to send a letter to Congress explaining why.
@9DBXVBM2yrs2Y
@8V3ZK6S4yrs4Y
yes but only in time sensitive cases
@B3RBL8S4mos4MO
ALL military conflicts is a stretch. in terms of terrorist attacks Congeress should have a say. in ALL military conflicts is something else. this would have to be a "it depends" thing. Creating that entire ability of the president to pass things without congress would provide a pathway for corruption given the limited checks on the execuitve branch already.
@B2GB9996mos6MO
It depends on the circumstances of the threat. If immediate action is needed, then the president should be able to approve military conflicts without Congressional approval.
@9XF79CC8mos8MO
Yes and No, If there is an emergency where war is necessary in a quick amount of time than yes. But they shouldn't be allowed to just do it any time they want to.
@9WDTKJ89mos9MO
I imagine this is situational and has a lot of other considerations that the public will not be privvy to.
@9WBXHW89mos9MO
No, Congress should approve all military conflicts, and matters of national security should be prioritized and expedited
@9LF5SCS1yr1Y
the president should not have unilateral power to wage war without international support in the UN general assembly, and all international laws must be honored
@9L74FFC1yr1Y
Yes, but only in emergencies where quick action is needed. Such authorization shouldn’t last beyond 30 days without congressional approval
@9JK3GFF 1yr1Y
It depends on the severity of the situation, and there should be a series of actions for whether or not we head into a conflict, but at the same time depending on how immediate the issue is a quick forceful action is needed.
@9J6YLX61yr1Y
yes but only if congress takes more than 24 hours to make a decision if the decision needs to be made in a time crunch, if not the congress should have more time
@9J5ZPDN1yr1Y
Yes, but only in extreme circumstances. If the president is found authorizing military force when it is not needed, he should be held accountable somehow, and the power that this brings makes it easier to defend the use of military funds and actions for unrelated ventures.
Yes, but only in emergencies when an immediate response is needed. Such orders should expire after 30 days without congressional approval
Yes, but only in national emergencies where quick action is required. Such actions should be forbidden from continuing past 30 days without congressional approval.
@9FFK48Y2yrs2Y
If it is an immediate threat.
@9FCTHDV2yrs2Y
@9J89LWY1yr1Y
My belief aligns with constitutional law: that congressional authorization is unnecessary if an enemy, foreign or domestic, declares war on the United States of America and attacks the United States of America based on the declaration of war.
@8YD6G3PIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, but only in times of need
@8MTS4N75yrs5Y
Yes in extreme situations
@8JNF2CM5yrs5Y
I don’t really know or care.
@Greeninjastar5Republican 9mos9MO
I think there should be an efficient way for Congress to approve/disapprove of a president's actions which are most important.
Al-Qaeda is irrelevant, but the president should not be able to authorize military action without congressional approval, unless it is in response to an attack.
@9SRRQVB10mos10MO
No, Congress should approve all military conflicts, and there should be more transparency and information given to the public.
@9S2XR6G11mos11MO
Depends on who the president is at the time, as we could deem the president seem “unfit” to make such decisions
@9QYVXHL12mos12MO
In limited situations and in other cases congressional support must be decided within 24 hours of request.
Yes, but only in emergencies where a quick response is needed. Such authorizations shouldn’t last beyond 30 days without congressional approval
if they are using force on our country I think it would be necessary that it shouldn't be authorized.
@9K8TKCG1yr1Y
I believe congress should approve war on all terrorist worldwide and also drug cartels if your on the terror watch list and criminal watch list.
Military aid to help countries overtaken by violent extremists is generally alright with me, but the US government as a whole has not proven to be trustworthy enough to not also attack innocents.
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
We must not intervene, Unless if it’s actually that dangerous.
@9FGKMBV2yrs2Y
If he has served in the military and deserves the distinction of having the title of highest ranking military then yes. If he has NO military experience then HELL NO!
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
I just generally think it sets a dangerous precedent to let one man decide if an entire nation uses military force.
@9DC49QP2yrs2Y
I think there should be a small group for immediate threats.
@9D49R482yrs2Y
@8JM259H5yrs5Y
@8PC5R9D5yrs5Y
Depends on what there doing
@8JHDQYP5yrs5Y
The President should have the ability to respond quickly, but any longer engagement should be accompanied by an Authorization to Use Military Force
@99F76942yrs2Y
Yes, but only if they are an immediate threat
@8WJD7G54yrs4Y
Yes but only in emergency's.
@8VWFCV44yrs4Y
Yes, but only for emergency.
@8TS7JNL4yrs4Y
No, and abolish the presidency.
@8PZ3CMS5yrs5Y
No, the people should vote.
@8N2ZDHX5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if its urgent.
@8L6DCNH5yrs5Y
@8GBQJ6CWomen’s Equality5yrs5Y
I´m not educated on this topic
@8G3BD6F5yrs5Y
Yes, but it depends on who the president is
@8CTQCFB5yrs5Y
No, Congress should approve all military conflicts but Congress hasn’t approved the actions by multiple Presidents in the last 20 years so maybe there needs to be a streamlined process for approval so people actually follow the rules to take advantage of a target of opportunity to eliminate a threat to the US.
@8VCC99M4yrs4Y
congress should approve all millitary conflicts to keep the checks and balance system in line. Anyway, if there was a present and immediate danger , congress would more than likely agree with the president anyway .
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
