very difficult question

[kralf]

prep test 33 section 1 #14

After the United Nations Security Council authorized military intervention by a coalition
of armed forces intended to halt civil strife in a certain country, the parliament of one UN member nation passed a resolution condemnig its own prime minister for promising to commit military personnel to the action. A parliamentary leader insisted that the overwhelming vote for the resolution did not imply the parliament's opposition to the anticipated intervention. On the contrary, most members of parliamentary supported  the UN plan.

paradox?

b. IN the parliamentary leader's nation, it is the constitutional prerogative of the parliament not of the prime minister to initiate foreign military action

Why b?

[theo]

prep test 33 section 1 #14

After the United Nations Security Council authorized military intervention by a coalition
of armed forces intended to halt civil strife in a certain country, the parliament of one UN member nation passed a resolution condemnig its own prime minister for promising to commit military personnel to the action. A parliamentary leader insisted that the overwhelming vote for the resolution did not imply the parliament's opposition to the anticipated intervention. On the contrary, most members of parliamentary supported  the UN plan.

paradox?

b. IN the parliamentary leader's nation, it is the constitutional prerogative of the parliament not of the prime minister to initiate foreign military action

Why b?

It's a separation of powers issue.

The parliament was offended that the prime minister went ahead and promised military aid when that decision should have rested with parliament.

The parliament was ok with committing the troops, but the parliament didn't like the fact that the prime minister didn't wait for them to vote on it.

[Amanda H.]

Yes, it would be like the U.S. President officially "declaring war" on another country.

(Officially, the president can engage in military activities for 60-90 days under the War Powers Act, but needs congressional authorization for further action.  Moreover, only the Congress can officially "declare war" under the constitution.  Therefore, the Congress would be understandably disturbed if the president officially "declared war" without seeking approval first.)

So it's a procedural concern more than a substantive one.

[bloomich]

Yes, it would be like the U.S. President officially "declaring war" on another country.

(Officially, the president can engage in military activities for 60-90 days under the War Powers Act, but needs congressional authorization for further action.  Moreover, only the Congress can officially "declare war" under the constitution.  Therefore, the Congress would be understandably disturbed if the president officially "declared war" without seeking approval first.)

So it's a procedural concern more than a substantive one.

Although your right as far as procedure goes, the Executive office has assumed the power to declare war in every conflict after World War II (the last time war was declared in congress).

Not entirely accurate.  While you are correct that the US has not declared war since World War II, the executive office has NOT assumed the power to declare war de facto.  This still requires an act of Congress.  For instance, in 1964, all but 2 member of the US Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution effectively giving President LBJ the power to wage war in Vietname, while not officially "declaring war."  This still was done by an act of Congress.  Outside of the War Powers Act, an act of Congress is needed even for "police actions," i.e. undeclared wars.  It also is important to keep in mind that one of Congress' most effective controls is appropriations.  That is to say, even if the executive could declare de facto war, she/he would still need Congress to finance it.

[Brian7]

1. This stimulus is a fact set. A paradox lies in the first sentence, "After the United Nations Security Council authorized military intervention by a coalition of armed forces intended to halt civil strife in a certain country, the parliament of one UN member nation passed a resolution condemning its own prime minister for promising to commit military personnel to the action."

2. Even though the military intervention is supported, "its own prime minister's initiative for the intervention isn't supported. It's a procedural issue.

3. So, the answer is 'B'

[Amanda H.]

Yes, it would be like the U.S. President officially "declaring war" on another country.

(Officially, the president can engage in military activities for 60-90 days under the War Powers Act, but needs congressional authorization for further action.  Moreover, only the Congress can officially "declare war" under the constitution.  Therefore, the Congress would be understandably disturbed if the president officially "declared war" without seeking approval first.)

So it's a procedural concern more than a substantive one.

Although your right as far as procedure goes, the Executive office has assumed the power to declare war in every conflict after World War II (the last time war was declared in congress).

As noted by Bloomich, the Executive office has never actually assumed the power to declare war.  (We haven't officially declared war at all since WWII.)  Most major actions have had congressional approval since then, however.