Fisher's Argumentative Analysis

Fisher Fisher’s intentions were to demonstrate his argument that the Commander in Chief with the premise of what the framers intended with the constitution. Through out his stance, Presidential War Power, Fisher not only fights for the intentions of the framers, but also the language of which write, how Congress and the President relates to these intentions, how to United Nations plays a role in this discussion, and the idea of the decision of going to war being held to a group of people instead of one single person. All of this is related Presidential war power in the United States; however, Fisher returning to the framers intentions is a clear motive in regards to his attitude of keeping the President at arms length with checks and balances. As Fisher points out, the framers did not want to live under a monarch—like they did under the King of England—thus, wanted to a system that can be governed by a grouping a officials. The …show more content…
Clinton believed (or still might believe) that doing the right thing is the justification to go around doing the legal thing. There are several issues that Fisher implies towards. First, the right or wrong thing to do—even considering that America is the National Police by some—can be very subjective. Right vs. wrong is not a black or white plate form. With that said, that level subjectivity should not be in the hands of one single opinion, but rather a group of people, which is why the framers wanted Congress to play such a critical role in such affairs. Second, if the framers intended to have the legality of war power to be dismissed, as Bill Clinton is suggesting, then why does it exist in the first place? This is Presidential power that is turning into a snowball effect. Almost like the idea of giving an inch and he wants a mile. Fisher examines example over example exploring this exact idea of Presidents getting power/war