DOCSLIB.ORG

National Standards Addressed By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

War Making: Executive and Legislative Powers Grade Level High School Discipline US Government American History National Standards for Civics and Government: The Center for Civic Education developed these standards to align with the National Education Goals stated in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 with support from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Standard III - How does the Government Established by the Constitution Embody the Purposes, Values, and Principles of American Democracy? Section A - How are power and responsibility distributed, shared, and limited in the government established by the United States Constitution? Content Standard 1 - Distributing governmental power and preventing its abuse. Section B - How is the national government organized and what does it do? Content Standard 1 - The institutions of the national government. Content Standard 2 - Major responsibilities of the national government in domestic and foreign policy. Recommended Time Two 90-minute class sessions or three 60-minute class sessions. Lesson Overview The recent war in Iraq has precipitated a nationwide debate on a longstanding Constitutional and political question: What are the respective roles and responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches in making war? In the course of this lesson, students will examine the constitutional, legal, political and historical sources of this debate and apply them to the current conflict in Iraq and to other situations both past and present. Objectives Students will: • Examine what the Constitution says about the war-making power. • Contrast the roles and responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches of government when it comes to making war. • Become familiar with important 20th and 21st century Congressional resolutions and acts, including the 1941 Declaration of War on Japan; the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964; the 1973 War Powers Act; and the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. • Analyze and evaluate contrasting opinions concerning the respective roles that should be played by the executive and legislative branches when it comes to making war. Materials • Handout 1: U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2) • Handout 2: President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Message to Congress, December 8, 1941 • Handout 3: War Resolution, December 11, 1941 • Handout 4: President Lyndon B. Johnson's Message to the American People, August 4, 1964 • Handout 5: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 10, 1964 • Handout 6: War Powers Act, 1973 • Handout 7: President George W. Bush’s Letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, September 4, 2002 • Handout 8: Iraq War Resolution, October 10, 2002 Procedures Day One – 90 minutes • Students will locate the relevant sections of the Constitution in Handout 1 related to war-making powers. They will individually compare the powers of each branch and then share their findings with a partner. The partners will summarize the war making powers of each branch. • The partners will describe the procedure and sequence of events followed in 1941 for declaring war as described in Handout 2: President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Message to Congress; and Handout 3: War Resolution. They will then compare/contrast that procedures in Handout 4: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Message to the American People with the one described in Handout 5: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Students will make inferences regarding the relationship between the President and Congress in making war. • Students will engage in a discussion centered on the following questions: 1. How were the actions taken by President Roosevelt similar to and different from those taken by President Johnson? 2. How were the actions taken by Congress in 1941 similar to and different from the actions taken by Congress in 1964? 3. In what ways was the bombing of Pearl Harbor similar to and different from the events in the Gulf of Tonkin? 4. Was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution an implied declaration of war, or was it something different? 5. What Constitutional issues arise as a result of the events of 1964? 6. What might have happened if the Congress had not passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? 7. How have the nature of war and the role of the United States in the world changed since World War Two? Day Two – 90 minutes • By 1973, increasing numbers of Americans and their elected representatives had turned against the war in Vietnam and came to believe that the president should be limited in his ability to wage war without the expressed approval of Congress. • Students will brainstorm a list of possible limitations on the president’s role as Commander-in-Chief that are consistent with the Constitution. • Students will use Handout 6: War Powers Act to compare/contrast their list with the provisions of the War Powers Act of 1973 and discuss the following questions: 1. Is the War Powers Act consistent with the Constitution? 2. Why do you think President Nixon vetoed the act? (Congress subsequently overturned his veto.) • Students will read Handout 7: President Bush’s Letter to House Speaker Hastert about his plans regarding possible war with Iraq and Handout 8: Iraq War Resolution that was passed the following month. They will discuss the following questions: 1. Is the Iraq War Resolution consistent with the Constitution? 2. Is the Iraq War Resolution consistent with the War Powers Act? 3. What might have happened if the Congress had not passed the Iraq War Resolution? 4. What recourse is left to Congress should it decide that the war in Iraq should be brought to an end? 5. What Constitutional and political challenges would Congress face should it decide to make use of its “power of the purse?” 6. How have the nature of war and the role of the United States in the world changed since Vietnam? • Students will stage a roundtable discussion on how the roles and responsibilities of the executive and legislative braches in the making of war have changed from 1941 to the present. The discussion should focus on the following set of questions: 1. Is the war-making power balanced between the executive and legislative branches of government? 2. If not, which branch possesses the greater power? 3. Should it be more balanced? Teachers may assign research regarding other conflicts in which the United States has been involved during these years, including the Korean War, the incursion into Cambodia, the invasion of Granada, the bombing of Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. Evaluation Defend or reject the following statement: The United States needs to develop a new and better-balanced way of deciding whether to make war? Handout 1: Constitution of the United States of America Article I Section 8 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Article I Section 2 The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Recommended publications
  • War and the Constitutional Text John C

    War and the Constitutional Text John C

    War and the Constitutional Text John C. Yoo∗ In a series of articles, I have criticized the view that the original under- standing of the Constitution requires that Congress provide its authorization before the United States can engage in military hostilities.1 This “pro- Congress” position ignores the constitutional text and structure, errs in in- terpreting the ratification history of the Constitution, and cannot account for the practice of the three branches of government. Instead of the rigid proc- ess advocated by scholars such as Louis Henkin, John Hart Ely, Louis Fisher, Michael Glennon, and Harold Koh,2 I have argued that the Constitu- tion creates a flexible system of war powers. That system provides the president with significant initiative as commander-in-chief, while reserving to Congress ample authority to check executive policy through its power of the purse. In this scheme, the Declare War Clause confers on Congress a ju- ridical power, one that both defines the state of international legal relations ∗ Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) (on leave); Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice. The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Justice. I express my deep appreciation for the advice and assistance of James C. Ho in preparing this response. Robert Delahunty, Jack Goldsmith, and Sai Prakash provided helpful comments on the draft. 1 See John C. Yoo, Kosovo, War Powers, and the Multilateral Future, 148 U Pa L Rev 1673, 1686–1704 (2000) (discussing the original understanding of war powers in the context of the Kosovo conflict); John C.
  • The Regime Change Consensus: Iraq in American Politics, 1990-2003

    The Regime Change Consensus: Iraq in American Politics, 1990-2003

    THE REGIME CHANGE CONSENSUS: IRAQ IN AMERICAN POLITICS, 1990-2003 Joseph Stieb A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: Wayne Lee Michael Morgan Benjamin Waterhouse Daniel Bolger Hal Brands ©2019 Joseph David Stieb ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Joseph David Stieb: The Regime Change Consensus: Iraq in American Politics, 1990-2003 (Under the direction of Wayne Lee) This study examines the containment policy that the United States and its allies imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War and argues for a new understanding of why the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. At the core of this story is a political puzzle: Why did a largely successful policy that mostly stripped Iraq of its unconventional weapons lose support in American politics to the point that the policy itself became less effective? I argue that, within intellectual and policymaking circles, a claim steadily emerged that the only solution to the Iraqi threat was regime change and democratization. While this “regime change consensus” was not part of the original containment policy, a cohort of intellectuals and policymakers assembled political support for the idea that Saddam’s personality and the totalitarian nature of the Baathist regime made Iraq uniquely immune to “management” strategies like containment. The entrenchment of this consensus before 9/11 helps explain why so many politicians, policymakers, and intellectuals rejected containment after 9/11 and embraced regime change and invasion.
  • A Legal Appraisal of Military Action in Iraq James P

    A Legal Appraisal of Military Action in Iraq James P

    Naval War College Review Volume 57 Article 6 Number 3 Summer/Autumn 2004 A Legal Appraisal of Military Action in Iraq James P. Terry Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Terry, James P. (2004) "A Legal Appraisal of Military Action in Iraq," Naval War College Review: Vol. 57 : No. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol57/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Terry: A Legal Appraisal of Military Action in Iraq A LEGAL APPRAISAL OF MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ James P. Terry he determination by the George W. Bush administration to enter Iraq and Tremove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power in early 2003 followed twelve years of Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Prior to the decision by the United States and its coalition partners to intervene in Iraq with military force, Saddam Hussein had done everything possible to avoid complying with the will of the international community. Of the twenty-six demands made by the Security Council since 1990, Iraq had com- plied with only three. Equally significant, the regime’s repression of the Iraqi people continued. The 2 October 2002 joint resolution of Congress authorizing the use of all means, including force, to bring Iraq into compliance was merely one of a series of actions by Congress to address Baghdad’s noncompliance with its interna- tional obligations.1 In 1998, for example, Congress James P.
  • Congress, Constitutional Responsibility and the War Power

    Congress, Constitutional Responsibility and the War Power

    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 17 Number 3 Symposium: The War Powers Article 2 Resolution 6-1-1984 Congress, Constitutional Responsibility and the War Power Allan Ides Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Allan Ides, Congress, Constitutional Responsibility and the War Power, 17 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 599 (1984). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol17/iss3/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONGRESS, CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WAR POWER by Allan Ides* I. INTRODUCTION That the national government has the power, both practical and constitutional, to place this nation at war is a given. That this power, potentially the most destructive and despotic of all powers vested in governments, is a necessity is no less plain. But our Constitution does more than create a national government with specified powers. Just as plainly as the Constitution grants or creates powers, it places limita- tions upon the exercise of those powers. Some of those limitations are specific negatives on governmental action, such as the proscriptions found in the Bill of Rights; others are structural devices designed to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power and to promote the ideals of a republican government.
  • To Declare War

    To Declare War

    TO DECLARE WAR J. GREGORY SIDAK* INTRODUCTION ................................................ 29 I. DID AMERICA'S ENTRY INTO THE PERSIAN GULF WAR REQUIRE A PRIOR DECLARATION OF WAR?................ 36 A. Overture to War: Are the PoliticalBranches Willing to Say Ex Ante What a "War" Is? ...................... 37 B. Is It a Political Question for the Judiciary to Issue a DeclaratoryJudgment Saying Ex Ante What Is or Will Constitute a "War"? .................................. 39 C. The Iraq Resolution of January 12, 1991 .............. 43 D. Why Do We No Longer Declare War When We Wage War? ................................................ 48 E. The President's War-Making Duties as Commander in Chief ................................................ 50 F. The Specious Dichotomy Between "General War" and Undeclared "'Limited War"........................... 56 II. THE COASE THEOREM AND THE DECLARATION" OF WAR: POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY AS A NORMATIVE PRINCIPLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS ........ 63 A. Coasean Trespasses and Bargains Between the Branches of Government ....................................... 64 B. PoliticalAccountability, Agency Costs, and War ........ 66 C. American Sovereignty and the United Nations .......... 71 III. THE ACCOUNTABLE FORMALISM OF DECLARING WAR: LESSONS FROM THE DECLARATION OF WAR ON JAPAN .... 73 A. Provocation and Culpability: Is America Initiating War or Is Pre-Existing War "Thrust Upon" It? ............. 75 B. The Objectives of War: The President'sLegislative Role as Recommender of War .............................. 79 * A.B. 1977, A.M., J.D. 1981, Stanford University. Member of the California and District of Columbia Bars. In writing this Article, I have benefitted from the comments and protests of Gary B. Born, L. Gordon Crovitz, John Hart Ely, Daniel A. Farber, John Ferejohn, Michael J. Glennon, Stanley Hauerwas, Geoffrey P.
  • Congress' Power of the Purse

    Congress' Power of the Purse

    Congress' Power of the Purse Kate Stitht In view of the significance of Congress' power of the purse, it is surprising that there has been so little scholarly exploration of its contours. In this Arti- cle, Professor Stith draws upon constitutional structure, history, and practice to develop a general theory of Congress' appropriationspower. She concludes that the appropriationsclause of the Constitution imposes an obligation upon Congress as well as a limitation upon the executive branch: The Executive may not raise or spend funds not appropriatedby explicit legislative action, and Congress has a constitutional duty to limit the amount and duration of each grant of spending authority. Professor Stith examinesforms of spending authority that are constitutionally troubling, especially gift authority, through which Congress permits federal agencies to receive and spend private contri- butions withoutfurther legislative review. Other types of "backdoor" spending authority, including statutory entitlements and revolving funds, may also be inconsistent with Congress' duty to exercise control over the size and duration of appropriations.Finally, Professor Stith proposes that nonjudicial institu- tions such as the General Accounting Office play a larger role in enforcing and vindicating Congress' power of the purse. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF APPROPRIATIONS 1346 A. The Constitutional Prerequisitesfor Federal Gov- ernment Activity 1346 B. The Place of Congress' Power To Appropriate in the Structure of the Constitution 1348 C. The Constitutional Function of "Appropriations" 1352 D. The Principlesof the Public Fisc and of Appropria- tions Control 1356 E. The Power to Deny Appropriations 1360 II. APPROPRIATIONS CONTROL: THE LEGISLATIVE FRAME- WORK 1363 t Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School.
  • A Defense of the War Powers Resolution

    A Defense of the War Powers Resolution

    A Defense of the War Powers Resolution During the Vietnam era, public concern over the legitimacy of U.S. military involvement in Indochina heightened interest in the constitutional division of the war powers. Congressional efforts to ensure legislative con- trol over future decisions to commit forces abroad culminated in 1973 in the passage, over President Nixon's veto, of the War Powers Resolution.1 The war powers issue remains unsettled, however, as the Resolution has been attacked as an unconstitutional and ill-advised attempt to legislate a new allocation of the war powers. The controversy over the Resolution's constitutionality has intensified during the past year as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha,2 which apparently invalidated the legislative veto, and of Con- gress' efforts to reassert its institutional authority in response to President Reagan's use of American troops in Lebanon and Grenada. This Note examines the constitutional sources of the President's inde- pendent power to make war. It argues that whatever authority the Presi- dent has to initiate American involvement in hostilities abroad need not be based, as many commentators assume, on his role as Commander-in- Chief,' which is not subject to restrictions by Congress. Rather, that au- thority derives from the general grant of "executive power" to the Presi- dent. As a result, although the Executive may use force abroad during emergencies without prior congressional authorization, Congress may channel this power with concurrent resolutions or statutes. The Note con- cludes that the War Powers Resolution is constitutional and that it pro- vides a desirable restriction on the President's capacity to make war when Congress is silent.
  • Title 'Expanding the History of the Just

    Title 'Expanding the History of the Just

    Title ‘Expanding the History of the Just War: The Ethics of War in Ancient Egypt.’ Abstract This article expands our understanding of the historical development of just war thought by offering the first detailed analysis of the ethics of war in ancient Egypt. It revises the standard history of the just war tradition by demonstrating that just war thought developed beyond the boundaries of Europe and existed many centuries earlier than the advent of Christianity or even the emergence of Greco-Roman thought on the relationship between war and justice. It also suggests that the creation of a prepotent ius ad bellum doctrine in ancient Egypt, based on universal and absolutist claims to justice, hindered the development of ius in bello norms in Egyptian warfare. It is posited that this development prefigures similar developments in certain later Western and Near Eastern doctrines of just war and holy war. Acknowledgements My thanks to Anthony Lang, Jr. and Cian O’Driscoll for their insightful and instructive comments on an early draft of this article. My thanks also to the three anonymous reviewers and the editorial team at ISQ for their detailed feedback in preparing the article for publication. A version of this article was presented at the Stockholm Centre for the Ethics of War and Peace (June 2016), and I express my gratitude to all the participants for their feedback. James Turner Johnson (1981; 1984; 1999; 2011) has long stressed the importance of a historical understanding of the just war tradition. An increasing body of work draws our attention to the pre-Christian origins of just war thought.1 Nonetheless, scholars and politicians continue to overdraw the association between Christian political theology and the advent of just war thought (O’Driscoll 2015, 1).
  • Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War Authorizations Is Sound Policy Charles D

    Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War Authorizations Is Sound Policy Charles D

    LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 256 | JANUARY 6, 2020 EDWIN MEESE III CENTER FOR LEGAL & JUDICIAL STUDIES Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War Authorizations Is Sound Policy Charles D. Stimson he Constitution’s allocation of war powers KEY TAKEAWAYS between the legislative and executive branches is a classic example of the sepa- T 1 The 1991 and 2002 AUMF Against Iraq ration of powers. The Congress has the power to Resolutions remain in force even though declare war but cannot fight the war on its own. The their purpose has been accomplished. President, as commander in chief of the Army and Navy, has (and has uniformly claimed) the authority to use military forces abroad in the absence of specific Repeal would not affect the 2001 AUMF, prior congressional approval.2 This authority derives the primary domestic statutory authority from his constitutional responsibility as commander for the war against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, in chief and chief executive for foreign and military ISIS, or associated forces. affairs. Without money from Congress, however, the President has no ability to fight those conflicts, nor Debating and repealing those war does he have the authority to appropriate funds to pay authorizations is a matter of congres- for those military conflicts on his own. sional hygiene and gets the Congress This tension between the legislative and executive back in the business of exercising its Article I muscles. branches was purposeful, as the Founders anticipated the grave significance of the country’s going to war. This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/lm256 The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
  • Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty: Past, Present, and Uncertain Future

    Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty: Past, Present, and Uncertain Future

    NOTES ARTICLE 5 OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY: PAST, PRESENT, AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE Broderick C. Grady* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 169 II. THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY: ITS ORIGINS AND PRECEDENTS... 171 A. The Atlantic Charter .................................. 171 B. The Brussels Treaty .................................. 173 C. The Rio Pact ........................................ 174 D. The Formationof the North Atlantic Treaty ................ 175 MI. ARTICLE 5: CONTEXT AND MEANING ........................ 177 IV. THE LIMITATIONS ON ARTICLE 5: ARTICLE 6 AND THE UN CHARTER .......................... 180 V. ARTICLE 5: THE PRESENT: SEPTEMBER 11 AND THE INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 5 ............................................. 185 A. Problems with the Invocation After 9/11 .................. 185 B. Difficulties in Invoking Article 5 Against TerroristGroups ..................................... 187 C. Did Article 5 Need to Be Invoked at All? .................. 188 * J.D. 2003, University of Georgia School of Law; B.A. 1999, Washington & Lee University. 168 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. [Vol. 31:167 VI. THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ARTICLE 5: CONCLUSIONS ......... 193 A. Does the Invocation of Article 5 Have any Value as Legal Precedent? ............................. 193 B. Invoking Article 5 in the Future ......................... 197 20021 ARTICLE 5 OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY I. INTRODUCTION In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the United States government acted to combat terrorism and bring those who supported the perpetrators of the attacks to justice.' President George W. Bush created the position of Director of Homeland Security, naming former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge to the post;' Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, containing several anti-terrorism provisions;3 and throughout the country, officials took steps to tighten security at likely targets, including airports, sporting events, and government buildings." The United States was not alone, however, in responding to the tragedy of September 11.
  • Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance

    Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance

    Order Code RL31339 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance Updated May 16, 2005 Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance Summary Operation Iraqi Freedom accomplished a long-standing U.S. objective, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but replacing his regime with a stable, moderate, democratic political structure has been complicated by a persistent Sunni Arab-led insurgency. The Bush Administration asserts that establishing democracy in Iraq will catalyze the promotion of democracy throughout the Middle East. The desired outcome would also likely prevent Iraq from becoming a sanctuary for terrorists, a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission report. The Bush Administration asserts that U.S. policy in Iraq is now showing substantial success, demonstrated by January 30, 2005 elections that chose a National Assembly, and progress in building Iraq’s various security forces. The Administration says it expects that the current transition roadmap — including votes on a permanent constitution by October 31, 2005 and for a permanent government by December 15, 2005 — are being implemented. Others believe the insurgency is widespread, as shown by its recent attacks, and that the Iraqi government could not stand on its own were U.S. and allied international forces to withdraw from Iraq. Some U.S. commanders and senior intelligence officials say that some Islamic militants have entered Iraq since Saddam Hussein fell, to fight what they see as a new “jihad” (Islamic war) against the United States.
  • The Constitutionality of Congressional Regulation of the President's Wartime Detention Policies, 2011 BYU L

    The Constitutionality of Congressional Regulation of the President's Wartime Detention Policies, 2011 BYU L

    BYU Law Review Volume 2011 | Issue 6 Article 12 12-18-2011 Challenging the Executive: The onsC titutionality of Congressional Regulation of the President's Wartime Detention Policies William M. Hains Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation William M. Hains, Challenging the Executive: The Constitutionality of Congressional Regulation of the President's Wartime Detention Policies, 2011 BYU L. Rev. 2283 (2011). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2011/iss6/12 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DO NOT DELETE 12/20/2011 3:44 PM Challenging the Executive: The Constitutionality of Congressional Regulation of the President’s Wartime Detention Policies I. INTRODUCTION The war on terrorism has involved several clashes on the political home front, with the President and Congress asserting conflicting policies. A recent example is Congress’s effort to deny funding to transfer detainees from Guantánamo Bay to the United States for prosecution and to place strict, almost impossible conditions on the President’s use of funds to release or transfer detainees to other countries. In the study of national security law, especially during the war on terrorism, “the lion’s