| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "WAR POWERS ACT 1973": |
|
|
The War Powers Act of 1973, 2007.
This paper examines the War Powers Act that determines the entry of the United States into war or hostilities.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the War Powers Act of 1973 aimed to define specifically and clearly the processes and steps in waging war. This Act required two factors before the declaration or during the continuance of warfare; the consent of Congress and of the President. The paper describes the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President in declaring war or involving the United States' Army in any hostilities. The paper discusses how U.S. Presidents have invoked the War Powers Act in the past, declaring military action without informing Congress. The paper discusses how the War Powers Act was again in the limelight after the 9-11 incidents.
From the Paper
"Several times throughout history, the war powers of the President have been put in question. "In Ex Parte Milligan, the Court found unconstitutional Lincoln's order authorizing trial by a military tribunal of Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer accused of stirring up support for the Confederacy. The Court ruled that civilians must be tried in civilian courts, even during time of war, as long at least as the civilian courts are open and operating. The Court also found the President lacked authority to declare martial law in Indiana. (Linder 2006)""
| |
|
The War Powers Act, 2002.
An overview of this 1973 Act which determines the activity of the U.S. military.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 11 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the War Powers Act (1973). The Act defines the terms in which US Armed Forces can be employed. It was passed, as the war in Vietnam seemed to be expanding without Congressional approval. Its implications in the thirty years since are also considered.
| |
|
War Powers Act of 1973, 1996.
Examines historical background & effect of law & argues it gives to president too much power to send troops abroad without consulting Congress.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 4 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Throughout the last several decades the power of the presidency in relation to the other branches of government has grown enormously both at home and abroad. This research examines the recent expansion of presidential authority in send American troops into combat situations in foreign affairs. Presidential usurpations of military power will be discussed, with special attention given to the relevance and the constitutionality of the 1973 War Powers Act.
Presidential War Powers Surprise Congress
The United States is now well entrenched in attempting to aid the United Nations forces in Bosnia bring that region's conflict to a close. It is not at all clear whether the United Nations, even with American support, will succeed. And even if it appears that peace is at hand, it is not at all clear whether..."
| |
|
The War Powers Act, 2005.
Analyzes the War Powers Act of 1973.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the War Powers Act of 1973, which was passed by Congress in response to the massive deployment of American troops to Vietnam in the nineteen-sixties. This deployment had begun in 1965 in the aftermath of the passage of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and had continued to escalate for four years. The paper shows that by 1969, more than five-hundred-thousand American soldiers were fighting in Southeast Asia and U.S. military commanders were demanding the deployment of two-hundred thousand additional troops.
| |
|
The War Powers Act, 2005.
This paper discusses that the War Powers Act, which places restrains on the president of the U.S.
780 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the War Powers Act states that the president as the commander-in-chief has the power to introduce the armed forces into any hostilities or into an imminent introduction to hostilities; however, these powers must be exercised by the president only under certain specific circumstances, such as a terrorist attack. The author points out that the president is restricted by the War Powers Act because the president is not able to use military force without the proper congressional authority and other similar authorizations. The paper concludes that, although at times the president is indeed checked by the War Powers Act, for the most part, he is free to make emergency decisions for the welfare of the country.
From the Paper
"Although it is also a fact that the Act as such dose not impose restrictions on the President with regard to authorizing military deployment in trouble ridden areas, and so on, the War Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. && 1541-1548 as such, has no purpose nor does it have the effect of modifying or changing the president's already existing powers. It does, however, impose certain restrictions with regard to procedure, that is, when issues of consultation and the presidential reporting of certain actions come into the picture. In fact, the War Powers Resolution also gives the President the power to terminate armed forces that have been deployed in foreign lands, but with the concurrent resolution of the Congress."
| |
|
The War Powers Act: An Analysis of Legislative Inanity, 2000.
An opinion piece as to why the War Powers Act is inane, empty and clearly an unconstitutional piece of legislation, the epitome of poorly constructed and inadequately thought out and executed legislation, and should be repealed.
945 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 3 sources, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The joint resolution "concerning the war powers of Congress and the President" was passed on November 7, 1973 above a Presidential veto; Congress made the decision to override the veto of President Nixon, a rare legislative occurrence. Such unified support among Congress indicates that the purpose of the act was primarily the self-aggrandizement of Congress, at the expense of the executive branch, compromising the balance of power. The War Powers Act is an inane, empty and clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation, the epitome of poorly constructed and inadequately thought out and executed legislation. It is frequently skirted and is most unclear. Further, it obfuscates responsibility and accountability of government officials. In the interest of the nation, the War Powers Act should be repealed."
| |
|
War Powers Act, 1991.
A legal analysis of the 1973 resolution covering the president's use of military overseas including background, purpose, international law and specific provisions.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 10 sources, $ 111.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The purpose of this section is to discuss the legality of President Bush's deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia with regard to case law. Discussion includes international law as well as domestic law.
Analysis
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution was to reaffirm the Constitution by removal of the decision of war and peace from the hands of a single individual (the President) and insurance of a collaborative decision between the President and Congress. The War Powers Resolution states that Presidents can send troops into "imminent hostilities" only if Congress declares war, passes a law allowing the deployment, or if there is an attack on U.S. territory or armed forces. The resolution states that the President must inform Congress within 48 ours when American..."
| |
|
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 1997.
History & evolution, purpose, provisions, amendments, effectiveness, four major court cases & outcomes.
2,925 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 13 sources, $ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The Endangered Species Act is an attempt by Congress to create and implement a comprehensive program aimed at addressing the concern of the extinction of plant and wildlife species. The Act currently in force is a culmination of almost a century of wildlife management. However, within that time, the various entities that find themselves concerned with the issues of plant and wildlife management have often had differing interests. Consequently, the Act has served as an area of tension between competing interests since its inception and the controversial cases to which it has given rise and its numerous amendments attest to its continuing controversy. Nonetheless, it is likely these competing interests will always cohabit with some tension."
| |
|
A Taxonomy of Power and Power-Compliance Gaining Strategies, 2001.
A discussion of the classification system defined by researchers French and Raven in 1959.
2,730 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses French and Raven's taxonomy of five power sources available for gaining compliance: Coercive power, reward-based power, legitimate power, expert power and referent power. The paper defines each kind of power, giving examples from laboratory studies, advertising, corporate theory and gender-based linguistic studies. The paper includes a discussion not only on the ways of obtaining power, but also on the forms of resistance to that power.
From the Paper
"Perhaps the most obvious definitionally and the crudest method in Raven?s taxonomy would be that of coercive power. Simply put, coercive power is the capacity to dispense punishments to those who do not comply with requests or demands. Consider, for instance, one of the most famous experiments ever conducted dealing with the exercise of power. In the study conducted by Stanley Milgram, subjects were recruited from ?a broad spectrum of socioeconomic and educational levels? to participate in a study of ?memory.? The subjects were then put into pairs, a teacher and a learner. The learner had to administer punishment through the use of electroshocks whenever the subject answered incorrectly. Of course, the learner was really a plant, a psychology student provided by Milgram. But the individual administering the punishment did not know that. So far as he or she knew, he or she had the ability to administer coercive power. Much to the shock and horror of the public when Milgram made his findings known, the ?teachers? did so to the point where the ?learners? protested that the shocks were becoming painful. This transpired as the level of electricity rose to 120 volts, then to 180 volts, to 300 where the subject demanded release, then to 330, when the learner became silent. (The actor playing the role of the experimenter told the subjects they had to go on, that there was no permanent tissue damage being done to the learners, and that he took ?full responsibility.?) Sixty-five percent of Milgram?s subjects conducted the experiment to the bitter end."
| |
|
The Significance of Relative Power Over Absolute Power, 2006.
An explanation as to why an emphasis on relative power in international relations is more important than absolute power.
1,313 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look at relative power versus absolute power, from both realist and liberal perspectives. The paper uses Canada and China as examples. The paper concludes that it is better for the state to emphasize a realist perspective rather than a liberalist one.
From the Paper
"States have always been interacting with one another on a systemic level. According to realists, because states are self-interested, they worry about power of which there are two different kinds. Realists value relative power more than absolute power. Absolute power refers to a state's strive towards flourishing economically, and militarily. On the other hand, relative power refers to a state's emphasis on its relationship with other states around it, watching surrounding states and planning accordingly. However, unlike realists, liberals do not value power as highly and look to gains as being more important. Absolute gains follow a non-zero-sum mentality, which means that a state's gains are infinite. One state's gain does not have to be another state's loss as it could be in the case of relative gains. As a result, what is more important for a state to emphasize: a realist's view of power or the liberal view of gains?"
| |
|
From Imperialist Power to Super Power, 2002.
An examination of the history of the United States as an imperial power and consideration of the implications of its position now that America is the only country in the world able to lay claim to the term superpower.
1,536 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the expansion of the American empire from its early days as a nation of farmers through being an imperial power with expanding territories to being the world's only superpower since the collapse of the Former Soviet Union. It evaluates whether it is a good thing for a state to be so powerful and looks at how long America can actually stay in this position in light of today's political world.
Outline
Introduction
Manifest Destiny
Land Acquisition through Conquest and Purchases
Implications of American Imperialism
America's History as an Imperialist Power
America as an Agricultural Country
The Need for Markets
Foreign Markets and American Imperialism
American Hegemony vs. other Imperial Powers
Comparison with the Soviet Union
Comparison with Britain
Negative Implications
America as the World's Only Superpower
America after the Collapse of the USSR
America as a Benign Hegemony
Collapse of Empire
Conclusion
From the Paper
"America began as a small cluster of colonies clinging to the eastern shore of the great continent of North America. As the country expanded westward, and also northward and southward, a spirit of "manifest destiny" gripped the land as pioneers, patriots and politicians sought to bring under American domination ever greater amounts of territory. Through land purchases such as the Louisiana Purchase, and through conquest, as in the case of the lands acquired as a result of the Mexican War and the Spanish American War, the country grew until it stretched from sea to sea, and from the Rio Grande River in the south, far north to the cold stretches of the Canadian wilderness."
| |
|
"State Power Is Male Power": Women And The Welfare State, 2002.
Argues that the welfare state, from a feminist perspective, is a feature of a patriarchal power structure.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Canada and the United States are in the midst of a period of economic expansion almost unprecedented in history. Integral to this expansion has been the tax and spending cuts of ideologically conservative governments. These governments have removed a great many lazy women and children from the welfare rolls and, through policies such as workfare, made them productive workers in our society. This paper will demonstrate, however, that this process may be seen as very logical when viewed from a feminist perspective. Underlying the conservative arguments about finances and budget is a subtextual debate about power in general and patriarchal power in particular. It will be argued that the welfare state is an integral feature of this patriarchal power structure. As such, the welfare state's focus on the weakest and the most disadvantaged in our society - whether in cutting benefits or controlling behaviour - reflects a continuing interest of patriarchal power structures in dominating the lives of women who are disproportionately represented in those dependent upon the welfare state.
| |
|
Presidential Powers In Foreign Policy, 1987.
Discusses the changing role & power of chief executive since WWII & Cold War in Vietnam, Latin America, Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra affair and War Powers Act.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This study will examine the powers of the President in the realm of foreign policy.
As Mc Cracken writes in The President?s Powers, ?Many observers trace the recent trend toward presidential prominence in foreign affairs to President Franklin Roosevelt and World War II? (34).
Although, as Mc Cracken goes on to point out, the President has exercised considerable power in foreign affairs since George Washington?s reign, it was indeed not until World War II and the Cold War that the President has been granted or has simply taken the kind of control in foreign affairs which has resulted in catastrophes which have scarred every President since that time.
As Mc Cracken adds, it was the Vietnam War era which brought into the forefront the struggle between Congress and the(...)"
| |
|
Endangered Species Act, 2006.
This paper discusses the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
2,954 words (approx. 11.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 87.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer looks at the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) that was designed to protect plant and animal species that were - and are - threatened by extinction and to provide punitive measures for persons and organizations that violate the Act. This paper focuses on just the animals that are endangered (not those on the "threatened" list), not the plants, although there are numerous plant species listed as endangered and thousands of species of plants already extinct. The writer looks at the animals this act concerns and discusses the proposed legislation. The writer discusses challenges and complications related to the Act.
Contents:
Introduction
Animals Placed on the Endangered Species List
Removed from the Endangered Species List
Legislation Proposed will Radically Change the ESA
Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone Park
Cut Throat Trout Numbers Shrinking in Yellowstone Park
Florida Home Builders Association Sues
Florida Native Americans Sue Interior Secretary Gale Norton
International Marine Mammal Project
Marketing Endangered Species and Wildlife Conservation
From the Paper
"One of the animals that may soon come off the ESA's list in a certain, prescribed area, is the Grizzly Bear. The Department of Interior (DOI) (which runs FWS) has decided to remove the 600 or so Grizzlies "in and near Yellowstone National Park" from the federal endangered list. Why? It would put protection of the bears in the hands of state wildlife officials in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, according to a USA Today article.
The other reason for taking the Grizzly off the federal protected list is that the bears' population in the Yellowstone area has increased from around 200 in 1975, to about 600 today. The Grizzly once number around 50,000 throughout the western United States and now there are about 1,200 remaining. They live primarily in four regions: Yellowstone, Glacier National Park (Montana), the Selkirk Mountains (Idaho), and in the Cabinet Mountains in Montana. The Grizzlies in those other three areas will remain on the ESA list of protected animals."
| |
|
?Presidential War Power?, 2002.
This paper discusses the War Powers Act of 1917 based on Louis Fisher?s book ?Presidential War Power?.
3,015 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reports the history of the power of the presidents to declare a state of emergency and to wage war based on the book ?Presidential War Power? by Louis Fisher.This paper explains that the concept of presidential War Powers stands in contrast with the ideas of the framers of the Constitution, who believed that Congress and the President should make the decision to wage war jointly. The author reports that Fisher argues that the War Powers Resolution needs revisiting; that Congress is never conferred with when the United States is involved in military actions.
From the Paper
"International policy continued to be dictated by Congress: although the President was responsible for the army and navy. In some cases, the President would maintain an activist foreign policy, setting an agenda that would be succinctly approved by Congress. This was the case during the Mexican-American War, when President James K. Polk ?notified Congress that ?war exists.?? Calhoun, the most prominent Carolinian politician of the day, was one of the few dissenters. His response was: ?I distinguish between hostilities and war, and God forbid that, acting under the Constitution, we should ever confound one with the other.? (Fisher 32) That members of Congress might even remain this level of circumspection even when the continental United States was attacked by an invading foreign power gives one some impression of the keen grip Congress wished to maintain on war-making authority."
|
|
|
