Debate #2 (Pro) Kassup

Posted on by

The Constitution is an open and broadly interpreted document but is also what would be considered a living document. A good way to better understand this open to interpretation aspect of the document is that the constitution is like a circle. You can move and read within those spaces but there’s still a border, a rim, a limiting factor. When reading into the document, you can read in those spaces but you can’t read inside it and then end up pushing outside the circle. There’s still a form of limitations to interpretation, it is open, not limitless. The President has gained more power and has the ability to enact military power overseas. This is due to the fact that the President is within the branch that is given the ability to do so. The ability to conduct war and the ability to declare are separated aspects of the government that are meant to act as a checks and balance, allowing limitations and coordination requirements. 


During the creation of the constitution, there was never the thought of where we would be in the current day. So much has changed and the very world is something entirely foreign them. The interconnectivity of each nation has become something that is now a requirement rather than an option. What the Founding Fathers were able to hold in foresight was that the nation would continue to grow and interact with others, keeping to a basic foundation allowed for more flexibility over time. The separation of powers would allow the continued existence of the nation through releasing the ability to control the military and declare war powers. This simple divide would ease any corruptive attempts to abuse the system and unleash the nation’s might onto whoever Congress or the President might have quarrels with. Instead the President is Commander in Chief, able to dispatch the military at his own call, though not immune to public image decay or Congressional disapproval. There is the catch that it must be in defense though and not in direct opposition through aggressive action. The degree of power unleashed though and involvement might be seen as offensive but it can be argued that it is still defensive if it is to protect American assets. Such loopholes in the War Powers Resolution are what allows the President to still take action even when Congress holds no stance or is still debating through one. 

14 thoughts on “Debate #2 (Pro) Kassup”

  1. Brent,
    You say that the line for the executive to enact it’s unilateral military action is only in defensive circumstances . My issue here is that the very act of what constitutes defensive unilateral military action can be interpreted many different ways. From what I get from your debate, I believe you are in the belief that such unilateral action would be constitutional under the scenario where U.S. assets are directly attacked. The problem here is that it could create numerous cases where the initial attack and consequences could be prevented through a preemptive “defensive” strike. Essentially, if there is a clear threat on the horizon that requires immediate attention, else face an imminent attack from another state, the president has the power to face that. And through the numerous ways congress has to hold the president accountable, the president should be able to continue to have the ability to act in those extreme circumstances.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *