Author: Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Book Description
Legislative History of the Amendment of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, P.L. 81-341
Author: Amending the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 to Provide for the Appointment of Representatives of the United States in the Organs and Agencies of the United Nations, and to Make Other Provision with Respect to the Participation of the United States in Such Organization. April 20 (legislative Day, March 29), 1948. -- Ordered to be Printed
Author: Amending the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 to Provide for the Appointment of Representatives of the United States in the Organs and Agencies of the United Nations, and to Make Other Provision with Respect to the Participation of the United States in Such Organization
Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign RelationsPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 3
Book Description
Amendment to United Nations Participation Act of 1945
Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign RelationsPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 10
Book Description
United States Code Congressional and Administrative News
Author: United StatesPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Administrative law
Languages : en
Pages : 2356
Book Description
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
Author: United StatesPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Four Confederated Bands of Pawnees
Languages : en
Pages : 450
Book Description
United Nations Yearbook of the International Law Commission
Author: United Nations. International Law CommissionPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : International law
Languages : en
Pages :
Book Description
The War Powers Resolution
Author: Congressional Research ServicePublisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781545111680
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 98
Book Description
This report discusses and assesses the War Powers Resolution and its application since enactment in 1973, providing detailed background on various cases in which it was used, as well as cases in which issues of its applicability were raised. It will be revised biannually. In the post-Cold War world, Presidents have continued to commit U.S. Armed Forces into potential hostilities, sometimes without a specific authorization from Congress. Thus the War Powers Resolution and its purposes continue to be a potential subject of controversy. On June 7, 1995, the House defeated, by a vote of 217-201, an amendment to repeal the central features of the War Powers Resolution that have been deemed unconstitutional by every President since the law's enactment in 1973. In 1999, after the President committed U.S. military forces to action in Yugoslavia without congressional authorization, Representative Tom Campbell used expedited procedures under the Resolution to force a debate and votes on U.S. military action in Yugoslavia, and later sought, unsuccessfully, through a federal court suit to enforce presidential compliance with the terms of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution P.L. 93-148 was passed over the veto of President Nixon on November 7, 1973, to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When such a report is submitted, or is required to be submitted, Section 5(b) requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 requires that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. From 1975 through March 2017, Presidents have submitted 168 reports as the result of the War Powers Resolution, but only one, the 1975 Mayaguez seizure, cited Section 4(a)(1), which triggers the 60-day withdrawal requirement, and in this case the military action was completed and U.S. armed forces had disengaged from the area of conflict when the report was made. The reports submitted by the President since enactment of the War Powers Resolution cover a range of military activities, from embassy evacuations to full-scale combat military operations, such as the Persian Gulf conflict, and the 2003 war with Iraq, the intervention in Kosovo, and the anti-terrorism actions in Afghanistan. In some instances, U.S. Armed Forces have been used in hostile situations without formal reports to Congress under the War Powers Resolution. On one occasion, Congress exercised its authority to determine that the requirements of Section 4(a)(1) became operative on August 29, 1983, through passage of the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119). In 1991 and 2002, Congress authorized, by law, the use of military force against Iraq. In several instances none of the President, Congress, or the courts has been willing to initiate the procedures of or enforce the directives in the War Powers Resolution.
The Work of the International Law Commission
Author: Vereinte Nationen International Law CommissionPublisher:
ISBN: 9789211337631
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 428
Book Description
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
Author: Kevin J. ColemanPublisher: CreateSpace
ISBN: 9781505554328
Category : Election law
Languages : en
Pages : 32
Book Description
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was successfully challenged in a June 2013 case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. The suit challenged the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA, under which certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting-mostly in the South-were required to "pre-clear" changes to the election process with the Justice Department (the U.S. Attorney General) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The preclearance provision (Section 5) was based on a formula (Section 4) that considered voting practices and patterns in 1964, 1968, or 1972. At issue in Shelby County was whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it reauthorized the VRA in 2006-with the existing formula-thereby infringing on the rights of the states. In its ruling, the Court struck down Section 4 as outdated and not "grounded in current conditions." As a consequence, Section 5 is intact, but inoperable, unless or until Congress prescribes a new Section 4 formula.