broadening the president's wartime authority.
Yes. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized President Johnson to escalate the war in Vietnam.
The president doesn't have the job to "take action " to solve problems. It is up to congress to make laws. He can put pressure on law makers, but he doesn't have the power to make law. Much of what Trump is trying to do with laws today is not constitutional and has gone to the federal courts because of it. A president is not a king and can't make laws.
A constitutional amendment
Congress approves the declaration of war, which is a formal matter of letting the commander in chief use everything he has available to win the war, including nuclear weapons if he so desires. A military action may (there have been more restrictions since Vietnam placed upon the president/commander in chief) be conducted with little or no approval from congress.
the authorization for use of military force that was passed by Congress. The President alone does not have the authority to initiate military action without congressional approval, so Congress needed to be persuaded by the justification and reasoning behind the military action.
The President has constitutional power to take military action whenever and wherever he believes it is necessary. Any sustained military operation would probably provide additional resources which only Congress can provide.
As president he was commander in chief of the US military and could order any action against the enemy.
Supreme Court
posse comitatus act of 1878
False. The President is the commander-in-cheif of the nations military, and can take any military action he pleases. However, that does not mean that congress has to fund it, or support it.
Technically, the president cannot declare war. This power is expressly reserved to Congress via Article I of the Constitution. However, Congress has not exercised this power since WWII. Thus, American military action in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were not "wars" in a constitutional sense. Instead, these actions have been termed "police actions" or "interventions." They have been the subject of much debate and criticism and many argue the presidents that ordered military action were acting beyond the scope of their constitutional authority. The counter argument is that, while the power to declare war is reserved to Congress, the president also has authority to order the use of military force via various clauses of Article II. Specifically, the president's position as commander in chief of the land and naval forces and the oath of office where the president swears to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, are often invoked to justify a president's use of military force absent a congressional declaration of war. Also, while Article I states that Congress shall have the power to declare war, Article II does not say the president shall not have the power to declare war. These arguments are, in my opinion, weak, self serving and contradictory to the intent of the framers.
The Democrats, who were a minority in Congress vigorously opposed Lincoln's actions in Maryland. They believed that suspending civil liberties, and using Federal troops was not the proper response. On the other hand, Lincoln believed that he had Constitutional authority in time of war to suspend habeas corpus, stop newspapers from opposing Union activities, and arrest people thought to be Southern sympathizers.
asss
President Thomas Jefferson questioned the constitutional right to purchase the Louisiana Territory.
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
desegregating the military