The Constitution separates war powers between the Congress and the President. The creators of the constitution intended to make sure that it was not easy to enter into wars. Nonetheless, the separation of power leaves the President with several unique and exclusive powers such as the Commander-in-Chief. However, the Supreme Court has fairly little to say concerning the Constitution’s war powers. Apparently, legislatures are co-equal and separate branches of the government; the authorities ought to balance the power of the executive branch and the governors (Gaziano, 2001). Also, the legislature needs to participate in the stimulation of policy and criticize to rubber-stamp the proposals of the executive branch. For instance, in 1960, the legislative reform movement was dominated by the governors where the legislature nurtured a sense of legislative freedom and independence.
Furthermore, the Legislative power vital and essential, however, it is paramount to attain a balance between the executive and the legislative (Exploring Constitutional Conflicts, n. d). Conversely, it is easy to measure the constitutional powers of the executive and the legislative, since their power hinges lie on the traditions and political factors of the statutory and the constitution.
Conflicts between the Commander in Chief and Congress: Concurrent Power over the Conduct of War
The governance of the United States comprises of the separation of powers where separate elections determine who controls the district institutions. As a consequence, the legislative and executive relations are conflictual and disturbing. The above article illustrates how the executive and the legislative deal with conflicts when making policy and rulemaking. Also, the article describes the administration of Bush and how his government handled the separation of power between the legislative and the executive branch of government.
For instance, the Bush administration argued that the President or the Commander in Chief has restricted and exclusive power to choose and decide on the military devices and tactics to implement so as to defeat the enemy (Lobel, 2008). The administration did not expect the Congress to interfere with the decision of the Executive commander in chief or the president. Conversely, the decision was significantly criticized, and the executive branch was expected to interview or question and get involved in wiretapping on the citizens of United States. As a consequence, the legislative branch argued that the President has exclusive power and authority over the functions and operations in the battlefield.
The aim or objective of the above article is to challenge the presumption and the statement of the Bush administration. The article argues that the President and the Congress have the simultaneous and concurrent power to conduct warfare, which has been allowed and authorized by the Congress. Additionally, the Congress argued that it has the power to maintain the ultimate power and authority to choose and decide on the strategies, tactics, and methods through which the America will wage war if it decides to implement the authority. Nonetheless, the president can manage and direct military campaigns without the presence of the congressional restrictions and regulations. However, the commander in chief has the power that the Congress cannot replace (Lobel, 2008). The power of the president to command and be the nation’s first general. In conclusion, this article argues that the two branches of the government power over the conduct of certified or authorized power, which is divided as a realistic issue through timing, and not the subject matter. The Congress has more reflective and deliberative power, and the president has the authority to initiate over the theater of war.