Frances Payne Bolton Quotes

… presidents launch [military] campaigns with inadequate planning, and Congress feels no obligation to back them when things go awry. And because this takes place under the auspices of the non‐legal constitution, the judiciary cannot decide cases that set rules for the future, which allows the disasters to recur.

[In wartime] there is almost always an overstretch [for power] by the President.

The constitution has never greatly bothered any wartime President.

Without the authority of Congress, the President cannot fire a hostile gun in any case except to repel the attacks of the enemy.

Is there really a way to restrict the powers of the Commander in Chief ... when one man's swiftly pressing the button may be necessary for some degree of national survival?

I think this sets a very bad precedent, the president unilaterally on his own starting war without any consent from Congress

The administration of George W. Bush, emboldened by the Sept. 11 attacks and the backing of a Republican Congress, has sought to further extend presidential power over national security. Most of the expansion has taken place in secret, making Congressional or judicial supervision particularly difficult.

But do I think that our actions in anyway violate the War Powers Resolution, the answer is no.

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion … and you allow him to make war at pleasure. … If today he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may see no probability he would say to you, “Be silent!, I see if you don’t.”

The powers conferred by the Constitution upon the Executive enable him to shape the foreign policy of this nation almost independent of the Legislature. A scheming and unscrupulous President can involve the country in serious complications, commit it to an unwise policy, or at least render its foreign diplomacy ridiculous before Congress may have an opportunity to check him.

The President … does not originate laws or resolutions; he takes no part in the deliberations on them during their progress; he does not act in relation to them indirectly by advice or interference of any sort, until they have passed both houses: it is only when their operations are concluded that his power begins.

The presidency is seemingly bound by law, but in practice it can do just about anything it pleases. It can order up troops anywhere in the world

We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

With a glance, a nod, and a few words, without consulting anyone other than the President, the brothers could mobilize the full power of the United States anywhere in the world.

The framers understood that the president, as the head of our armed forces, must defend the nation from imminent threat. But when the mission shifts from defense to offense, congressional approval is essential.

I think you have to be concerned about any presidential executive order because it has the power of law until it's knocked down by an act of Congress or a court.

I do not believe the President requires any additional authorization from the Congress before committing US forces to achieve our objectives in the Gulf.

When the president acts in absence of a congressional grant of authority, he can rely only upon his own independent powers. When the president takes measures incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb.

That's one of the major lessons: no president should ever take this nation to war without full public debate in the Congress and/or in the public.

When the President decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from congress.

Speaker John Boehner complained that Barack Obama ordered the U.S. military into combat in Libya without clearly defining the mission to the American people and Congress. See, apparently, you're only allowed to do that when invading Iraq.

I believe that the power to declare war is most important in limiting the powers of the national government in regard to the rights of its citizens, but that it does not require Congress to give its approval before the president uses force abroad.

I've said it before: Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he's been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we've fought for decades.

Obama is a tyrant the same way FDR was a tyrant. He has a view of presidential power that states: the government is in control of the country, and the president is in charge of the government. He's taken an imperial view of the presidency.

If a president can enforce a part of a law and delay a part of a law, then does he have a power to not enforce any law he so chooses? If he can allow illegal aliens to freely run across our border, can he force legal citizens out of the country? Where would be the end of his power?