The War Powers Act of 1973, aimed at addressing concerns over unchecked presidential authority, has sparked a longstanding debate on the balance of power between the President and Congress in matters of military engagement. 

Proponents of expansive presidential authority argue that the Commander-in-Chief must possess flexibility and autonomy to respond swiftly to national security threats. They emphasize that the President's ability to act decisively ensures the protection of American lives and interests. Additionally, they contend that executive power enables effective and unified decision-making during times of crisis when time is of the essence.

Critics of unchecked presidential authority argue that it undermines democratic principles and the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. They emphasize the importance of congressional oversight as a safeguard against potential abuses of power. Supporters of congressional oversight assert that decisions to commit American forces to armed conflict should be made collectively, reflecting the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

The question for debate is, does the President have too much military authority to engage other countries?