In the work entitled: “National Security Powers: Are the Checks in Balance?” Marybeth Ulrich talks of the purpose of the War Powers Resolution (pp.93-148). He states that it is to ensure that Congress and the President mutually share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in international hostilities. It is the contention of Ulrich that U.S. intervention in Iraq was given powers to do so by the 2nd session of the 107th Congress. In this congress, HJ Res. 114, was passed and handed over to the forces who were dealing with the Iraq resolution. This resolution failed to adhere to the Constitutional principles of a national security process in which many explicit powers are granted specifically to Congress.
On March 19, 2003, former President G.W. Bush used the authority vested in him by P.O. and launched a pre-emptive military action against Iraq. During the first series of the one hundredth congresses S.J. Res. 23 was passed on September 14th the year two thousand and one tragedy. This legislation, titled the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’ passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0; and the House in a vote 420-1, in what was a joint resolution provides the President with the authorization to implement all the powers granted to him by the senate with regard to the international terrorism. This is through, application of force to nations that do support acts of terrorist attacks. This is with major concern towards those countries that were either engaged in arranging or planning economic aiding, or giving support to either organizations or groups of people that were involved in the attack of September 11, 2001. The president is to do this in order to curb such activities and prevent their repetition in times to come against the United States by such individuals or nations which may be having such kinds of plans.
U.S. Constitutional Principles
Marybeth Ulrich states that the framers of the U.S. Constitution had given the congress of the country, the mandate to be holders of the government’s powers. Ulrich further notes that in a historical review of the records in a period of time, the presidents of America have exploited the powers granted to them in a move to improve and upraise the presidential powers. This is addressed as well in the work of Healy and Lynch (p. 44), entitled: “Power Surge: the constitutional record of George W. Bush” that the view of federal power advanced by the Bush administration is one that is very wide and it includes the kind of president who is not restricted by some statutes. This president has got the powers to go ahead with any tactical activity that he thinks as useful and important in pursuit of war and terror. Also a president who is given the mandate by the constitution to punish or take an action towards any citizen of America that is under suspect of being involved in any acts of terrorism. Not only should this be done to the American citizens but also to any other person who the state considers to be an enemy of the country. This people who are a threat to the country I war or through terrorism once caught should be kept under lock until the war is over and no charges should be given to such individuals. According to Healy and Lynch (paragraph 4) “the executive branch of the United States of America has increased over time in its power and this increase represents an imbalance that threatens to eradicate the system of checks and balances which was established to ensure that no single branch of the government can engulf the other branches of the U.S. government.”
In conclusion, it is the view of this writer that the Constitutional principles of governmental power according to the checks and balances clearly set out in the U.S. Constitution has been abridged in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and as a result there has been a shift in the powers vested in the Executive Branch of government as noted in “National Security Powers: Are the Checks in Balance?” by Marybeth Ulrich. Therefore we find that both Americans and Chinese governments are aimed at increasing their own oil supplies through the oil that is found in Africa. It then raises the questions as to whether their interests are compatible or competitive.
The United States of America’s secretary for African affairs said that the China and Africa interaction dos not act as a big threat to the USA. It is very clear that the two are competing for one particular commodity and they can therefore not be great friends. We find that Africa is at stake with regard to its natural resources. This is because there are hungry watchers who are aiming at getting the resources and wanting to exploit them, and snatch them away. We find that the Chinese interest to Africa is one that in away is much beneficial to Africa. This is through the trade that Africa is been involved in with China. China offers Africa aid that has no strings attached making Africa prefer to trade with it (MaryBeth 67).