#27 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[biskam]

Was stuck between A and D with this one. I leaned towards D because the author seemed to hinge on the fact that the war was a "turning point" that ushered in a new act. I could more support this by lines in the text than A which wasn't expressly supported

Would appreciate your help!

[Eric Ockert]

The passage does claim that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was a reaction to the Vietnam War, but does not specifically claim that it was a reaction to the invasion of Cambodia during that War. So while you might say that the Vietnam War was a turning point, it is difficult to say that the invasion of Cambodia specifically was a turning point. So, if this question was asking what the author would agree with regarding the Vietnam War, answer choice (D) might be fairly compelling.

The last sentence of the passage states that "the resolution asserts that congressional involvement in decisions to use armed force is in accord with the intent and spirit of the Constitution." From this fact, we can infer that the decision to invade Cambodia was not in accord with this intent and spirit, since it was made without Congressional consent. Hence, answer choice (A) is correct.

Hope that helps!

[nmgee]

Hi,

I was also between A and D. I see the inference possible in (A), but I don't understand why that inference can be made but the one in (D) cannot. Since this question is about inferring, I have two questions:

1) The WPR of 1973 is said to be a reaction to the Vietnam War, during which Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia. If the passage claims that the Vietnam War "represented a turning point," why can't we infer -- given the description of Nixon's claim of unlimited discretion, contrasted with the Congress's post-Vietnam lowered tolerance of presidential discretion -- that the Cambodian invasion can be considered a precedent for a new interpretation of constitutional limits (D)? In other words, if Nixon's actions were an example of what Congress would later deem inappropriate, why can't we infer that the invasion of Cambodia (because it occurred during the Vietnam conflict) can be considered a precedent for new interpretation, as stated in (D)?

2) What would cause us to infer the final sentence of the passage is reflective of the author's perspective? The sentence states that "the resolution asserts congressional involvement...is in accord with...the Constitution". I'm not seeing what would make us attribute this claim to the author, since the sentence explicitly says that that final claim is asserted by the resolution. Therefore, I'm not seeing why the author would "agree" with (A)'s statement regarding Cambodia. Whereas, I might see him agreeing with the statement of precedent in D, which seems more objective to me, while A seems more subjective to me (and I didn't see anything to suggest the author agreed with it).

Thanks in advance for your help!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi nmgee,
In Answer D Cambodia would not be considered a precedent for the new interpretation, a precedent is supposed to tell you how you should do something, it provides a guide for the future. In this case an entirely new law (the new interpretation) was created to stop the precedence of what happened with Cambodia (and other examples of presidential overreach).
Answer A is supported by statements such as: "Although this allocation of powers does not (20) expressly address the use of armed forces short of a declared war, the spirit of the Constitution at least requires that Congress should be involved in the decision to deploy troops, and in passing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Congress has at last (25) reclaimed a role in such decisions."
I placed parts of the author's view in bold in the quote above to highlight the support for Answer A.
Hope this helps!
-Malila

[alyosha99]

I understand that the invasion of Cambodia could be seen as a violation of the intent and spirit of the constitution, but not why this invasion violated it "because it was undertaken without the CONSENT of congress." In the passage, it is stated multiple times that some Congressional involvement is required in the decision to employ troops, but I thought that "involvement" could mean anything (advising the president etc.) and doesn't necessarily have to mean that Congress needs to actually agree with such deployment of troops. What am I missing here?

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey Alyosha99,

So the author seems to implicitly endorse the resolution that happened after Cambodia, which requires that congress either declare war, or be involved in every decision in other types of military conflicts that are not declared war. The passage then goes on to state in the last sentence, that this resolution is in line with the intent and spirit of the constitution.

Essentially the author implicitly endorses the idea that congress should either be the one to declare war, or if they do not declare war, congress should be involved in every step of the conflict, and the author feels as though this reflects the spirit of the constitution.

With the conflict in Cambodia, the second paragraph states that Nixon was basically unilaterally making decisions in a situation that was not a declared war. So the author would feel that not getting consent from congress would violate the intent and spirit of the constitution.

I hope all this helps, and I wish you the best of luck in your studies.

Best,
Ryan

[jona_zx]

I agree with alyosha99 here. I dont see why the author would say that lack of "consent" violates the spirit of the constitution. the passage says that merely being "involved" is what the spirit of the constitution requires of congress... In other words, the author might be ok that Nixon did not ask for consent, what clearly would bother him is that he did not involve them at all (at least to consult).

[Jeff Wren]

Hi jona,

You're making a distinction between "mere involvement" and consent that isn't really present in the passage.

While it could have been more clearly stated in the passage, Congress's being "involved" in the decision includes providing/withholding its consent to the deployment of the use of troops.

The end of the first paragraph states that "the spirit of the Constitution at least requires that Congress should be involved in the decision to employ troops" (lines 20-22). What does it mean for Congress to be "involved" in the decision to employ troops? If Congress doesn't consent to employ troops and the President does it anyway over Congress's objections, is it really accurate to describe Congress as being "involved" in the decision in any meaningful way? Not really.

The second paragraph begins with examples of Presidents who deployed United States troops in conflicts without waiting "for the approval (i.e. consent) of Congress" (lines 26-27). These are meant to be examples of Presidents deploying troops without involving Congress in those decisions. In other words, the second paragraph provides examples of what is discussed in the first paragraph. These are not separate topics/ideas.

At the end of the second paragraph, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is described as "a statute designed to ensure that the collective judgement of both Congress and the President would be applied to the involvement of United States troops in foreign conflicts" (my emphasis)(lines 43-47). This refers to Congress's involvement in these decisions, including giving/withholding its consent.

Since the author believes that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is in accord with the spirit and intent of the Constitution (lines 60-63), there is ample support that the author would agree with Answer A.