Résumé:
Different responsibilities given by the U.S. Constitution over military action perfectly reveal where one's war powers begin and where the other's ends. However repeated presidential decision to be involved in war in the absence of congressional official declaration to such use of force enriches the debate between scholars who still question who is supposed to control president or congress?
This dissertation tries to affirm the reality of this shift and to prove it through the war cases that presidents have been involved in. It also attempts to shed the light on how presidents disrespected war powers division made by the Founding Fathers relying on their role as commander on chief.
In the view of some experts, president have a broad right under the name granted to him which provide him with all the authority he needs to use war powers without seeking congressional authorization. By contrast others support congressional will and supremacy in using force abroad and reflect on presidential illegitimacy to act unilaterally.
What confirms presidential absolute power is congressional failure to challenge presidential power usurpation. And court inability to restore the balance of war powers and solve constitutional conflicts between the executive and legislative branches which contributed in large degree to the development of this situation
This study will investigate the main reasons that led to the shift in practice of war powers between President and Congress, and the incidents led the congress to check over presidential war practices in an attempt to maintain balance between both executive and legislative branches.
