Why did the Framers choose not to give the President the power to declare war?
815744
To prevent abuse of power. The framers did not intend for this to be a monarchy, which is why they made so much of checks and balances--even though our current Pres thinks he is supreme ruler, he is no more powerful than the Congress or the Supreme Court.
869362
To avoid a grip of power and discourage would be dictators.\nLikewise, it is provided for in the Constitution.
1083708
Correct Lincoln started the war unconstitutionally. It was never declared a war by Congress. Lincoln ruled as a dictator according to his own hateful whims. Thus always to tyrants.
13088
Lots of reasons, it clearly takes away certain presidential powers, as the act restricts some things that aren't outlined clearly in the constition. It also grants the president 40 (I think) days to do as he pleases with the military, before the congress must intervene. It was passed, partially, in response to the actions of the President during the Vietnam War.
130277
If you go to the official government website, it should tell you... They don't personally have military powers... the president for instance proposses going to war. He needs the congress' and the senate's approvial by vote. If they vote no, then the president can send the military over to war for a mximum of 30 days. Then by the amendments, he must order them back. Many presidents have used this to get around voting. I don't know if it fully solved your question, so look on the government's sight... I'm pretty sure it's all right, but as I said, double check! :D HOPE IT HELPS!
1081074
Actually this is inaccurate as well, "President decided to go to war on Sept 12.  He is the decider, he is the one who must be held accountable".\n\nNo, the president is not the "decider" and ultimately held accountable.  The president cannot go to war simply because he says so.  He must first get congress to approve the act of war.\n\nhttp://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/\n\nthe Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.  the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. \n\nCongress views the same intelligence reports the president does and with that information is how they decide to go to war or not.
350901
Great question.  Nearly every role requires the president to share power with Congress.  As Chief Executive, the budgets of the departments are controlled by Congress and the department heads confirmed by Senate votes.  As chief diplomat, all treaties must be ratified by the Senate.  As appointer of the federal judiciary, his or her picks must be ratified by the Senate.  As Commander in Chief, it is Congress that declares war.  Having said all that, the key role in which the most leeway will be granted is as commander in chief.
724524
When this controversy started months ago, I was thinking that Bush was not wanting to have talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because that would represent him as having equal power.\n\nI have since come to believe that is not the reason. The reason is Bush is avoiding the situation. As long as he refuses to have talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he isn't forced to take action. \n\nThink about it... Bush basically handed over the responsibility of resolving the controversy to the United Nations.
171769
Its possible but not probable.  Reason being is because people want things their way or no way.  They refuse to comprimise.  So, they declare war.  Its a sad fact of life.
1001290
The Constitution gives the President primary powers in foreign policy, but Congress has oversight and, ultimately, the power of the purse - if they don't like a particular course of action, they can refuse to fund it or authorize any monies to be spent on it.
557849
there has to be war sometime. but i do not like it at all. i think that we can settle things with communication and agreement. i think that the war in iraq is because the president is not thinking about how to solve it without war. he says he is a christian but we do not believe in violence. \n                          -peace child
112019
as george w said himself "the president's duty is to make decisions,in other words he is a desision maker".\nyes the (main) president's duty is to make decicions in order to provide comfort for it's people,and comfort may contain security ,prosperity,...\nbut about his powers you ought to ask your question another way "what are not the powers of the president"!\nofcourse president's power is limited by the congress but if if they are concordant to him then his got almost any power!!!
95709
If it within the confines of existing law I don't have a problem with it. I'm one who believes that president doesn't not have a lot of power. The constitution limited the presidents powers inorder to keep the government in the hands of the people thru it's elected representives. Additionally, the Commander In Chief status(Article II) placed on the president was meant to keep military generals or other officers from taking over the country like we seen happen so many times in other countries ie Cuba, and many African nations.
1166491
It can't be won! Some in the military or ex army colonels knew it couldn't be won. George HW Bush knew it couldn't be won!!\n\n\n"I'm a war president.  I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind.  Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true.  And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is.  And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them."\n\nGeorge Bush on Face the Nation
173458
I don't think Woodrow Wilson had much of a choice.  With the Zimmerman  Telegram and more US merchant marine vessels being torpedoed, public opinion would have forced him into it.  \nRemember we waited nearly 3 years before declaring war on the Central Powers.
857412
This is one of the fundamental protections in a civilized society. We are now reduced to the level of a police state. I don't blame Bush for asking for this power; I blame a cowardly congress for granting it. That's one reason the nation rejected the GOP.\n\nTo answer the previous post, the President can declare ANYONE, not just foreigners, a "person who might be aiding terrorists", and then hold them indefinitely at an undisclosed location. Effectively, this has entirely negated habeas corpus. \n\nThe President is not required to explain to a court why he believes someone has aided terrorists, so he could literally choose anyone, and no-one, not even the Supreme Court could require him to produce that person ever again - people can now just 'disappear' - as happens in facist dictatorships.
1105123
The War Powers Act of 1973:\n\nSEC. 2. (c) \nThe constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. \n\nSEC. 3. \nThe President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. \n \nThe Constitution:\n\nSection. 2.\n\nThe 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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.\n\nNothing listed is a) an impeachable offense (The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors) or b) has not happened.\n\n1)Iraq was in violation of a dozen U.N. Resolutions, as well as the treaty signed with the U.S. following the first Gulf War. No power was seized. \n\n2) The administration did not lie to Congress or the american people. In fact, the intelligence used to justify the war was mainly the same intel that Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, and William Perry used as justification for launching cruise missiles into Iraq in '98.\n\n\n3) No military fighting force in thehistory of civilization has gone out of their to the extent that the U.S. Military has to avoid civilian casualties. They could have obliterated that country in a week otherwise. \n\n4) The NSA wiretapping was legal, and has not been found otherwise by any legal body. \n\n5) Under Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime, the Iraqi people had neither sovereignty nor independence, and to suggest otherwise would be a gross misrepresentation of either term.\n\n6) I say execute, assasinate, and imprison any bastard plotting the deaths of Americans or AMerican soldiers.