Download (A) Supporting Standard (20)

Supporting standards comprise
35% of the U. S. History Test
20 (A)
Supporting Standard (20)
The student understands the changing
relationships among the three branches of federal
government.
The Student is expected to:
(A) Describe the impact of events such as the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution & the War Powers Act
on the relationship between the legislative &
executive branches of government
Separation of
powers
French aristocrat and political philosopher Charles
Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de
Montesquieu, 1689-1755 wrote the multi-volume
Esprit de lois (The Spirit of Laws), 1748. Among many
other ideas, Montesquieu proposed the separation of
powers to insure fair and equitable government. The
Founding Fathers adopted the concept and applied it
in the American Constitution. While the Founding
Fathers accepted his idea of separation of powers,
they rejected Montesquieu’s position that “a
republican government could not flourish in a large
territory.”
Instances of an imbalance of powers long
predated both War Powers Act & the Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution
Jackson’s response to Marshall’s
declaration that Indian Removal was
unconstitutional
Impeached over Tenure of Office
violation, an act whose
constitutionality was suspect.
The beginning of
an era of
domination by the
legislative branch
over the executive
The restoration of
executive power
The discredit Andrew
Johnson brought to the
presidency largely threw
the balance of political
power to Congress until
the administrations of
McKinley & Theodore
Roosevelt
Supporting Standard (20)
The student understands the changing
relationships among the three branches of federal
government.
The Student is expected to:
(A) 1 Describe the impact of events such as the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on the relationship
between the legislative & executive branches of
government
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Southeast
Asia Resolution enacted August 10, 1964, was
a joint resolution that the U. S. Congress passed on
August 7, 1964, in response to the Gulf of Tonkin
Incident.
It is of historical significance because it gave President
Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of
war by Congress, for the use of “conventional” military
force in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the resolution
authorized the President to do whatever necessary in
order to assist “any member or protocol state of
the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty.” This
included involving armed forces.
The Johnson administration subsequently relied
upon the resolution to begin its rapid escalation of
U.S. military involvement in South Vietnam and
open warfare between North Vietnam & the U. S.
The USS Maddox, a U.S. destroyer, was conducting
a DESOTO patrol in the waters of the Golf of Tonkin on
August 2, 1964, when it was attacked by three North
Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats from the 135th Torpedo
Squadron, which were attempting to close their range on
the Maddox for effective torpedo fire (1,000 yards was
maximum effective range for the torpedoes). Maddox fired
over 280 5-inch shells and the boats expended their 6
torpedoes (all misses) and some 14.5-mm machinegun fire.
Breaking contact, the combatants commenced going
their separate ways, when the three torpedo
boats, T-333, T-336, and T-339 were then attacked
by four USN F-I Crusader jet fighter bombers from
the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga.
Two days later on August 4, the Maddox and the
destroyer Turner Joy both reported to be under
attack again, by North Vietnamese torpedo boats;
during this alleged engagement, the Turner
Joy fired approximately 220 3-inch & 5-inch shells
at radar controlled surface targets.
After fewer than nine hours of committee consideration and floor
debate, Congress voted, on August 10, 1964, on a
joint resolution authorizing the president “to take all necessary steps,
including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol
state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting
assistance in defense of its freedom.” The unanimous affirmative vote
in the House of Representatives was 416–0. The Senate conferred its
approval by a vote of 88–2.
Critics decried as having given the Johnson administration
a “blank check.” Seeking to restore limits on presidential
authority to engage U.S. forces without a formal
declaration of war, Congress passed the War Powers
Resolution in 1973, over Nixon’s veto. The War Powers
Resolution, which is still in effect, sets forth certain
requirements for the President to consult with Congress in
regard to decisions that engage U.S. forces in hostilities or
imminent hostilities.
Supporting Standard (20)
The student understands the changing
relationships among the three branches of federal
government.
The Student is expected to:
(A) 2 Describe the impact of events such as the
War Powers Act on the relationship between the
legislative & executive branches of government
Where should
power divide?
During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States
found itself involved for many years in situations of
intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many
members of Congress became concerned with the erosion
of congressional authority to decide when the United
States should become involved in a war or the use of
armed forces that might lead to war.
The credibility gap widened when news leaked out that
President Nixon conducted secret bombings of Cambodia
during the Vietnam War. He did not tell Congress about
his military plan. The resolution was created because
Congress felt that the president had too much power.
The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the House
of Representatives & Senate but was vetoed by
President Nixon. By a two-thirds vote in each house,
Congress overrode the veto and enacted the joint
resolution into law on November 7, 1973.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a federal law
intended to check the president’s power to commit
the United States to an armed conflict without the
consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in
the form of a United States Congress joint
resolution; this provides that the President can
send U. S. armed forces into action abroad only by
declaration of war by Congress, “statutory
authorization,” or in case of “a national
emergency created by attack upon the United
States, its territories or possessions, or its armed
forces.”
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to
notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed
forces to military action and forbids armed forces from
remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day
withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of
military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was
passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding
a presidential veto. It has been alleged that the War
Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for
example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the
bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had
congressional disapproval, but none have had any
successful legal actions taken against the president for
alleged violations.
Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in
the Multinational Force in Lebanon Act, which authorized
the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months during
1982 and 1983. In addition, the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 which
authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi
forces during the 1991 Gulf War, stated that it constituted
specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the
War Powers Resolution.
On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the
War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be
withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had
already taken this action in appropriations legislation.
More recently under President Clinton,
war powers were at issue in former
Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, &
Haiti, and under President George W.
Bush in responding to terrorist attacks
against the U.S. after Sep. 11, 2001. In
1999, President Clinton kept
the bombing campaign in Kosovo going
for more than two weeks after the 60day deadline had passed.
In October 2002 Congress enacted the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq which authorized
President Bush to use force as necessary to defend the
United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United
Nations Security Council Resolutions.
Because the Constitution limits the President's authority
in the use of force without a declaration of war by
Congress, there is controversy as to whether the
provisions of the resolution are consistent with the
Constitution.
One argument concerns a possible breach of the
“separation of powers” doctrine, and whether the
resolution changes the balance between the Legislative
and Executive functions.
Fini