Q27

[chocolatebunny]

I correctly picked A for this question but D gave me a little trouble so I wanted to check my reasoning. I ultimately picked A because I thought A was better than D. I eliminated D because the passage didn't explicitly state that Cambodia was the reason for the turning point in Congress's tolerance but rather Vietnam as a whole.

Am I right or is there some other reason for eliminating D that I'm completely missing?

[patrice.antoine]

I correctly picked A for this question but D gave me a little trouble so I wanted to check my reasoning. I ultimately picked A because I thought A was better than D. I eliminated D because the passage didn't explicitly state that Cambodia was the reason for the turning point in Congress's tolerance but rather Vietnam as a whole.

Am I right or is there some other reason for eliminating D that I'm completely missing?

Yes, you are right. No other reason is needed here.

[youmin.moon]

I have a question for (D) as well. If the answer choice is about the Vietnam conflict, not the invasion of Cambodia, isn't it still wrong that Vietnam conflict served as a precedent for a new interpretation of the constitutional limits? In my opinion, it is certain that Vietnam conflict was a turning point for that new interpretation, but I don't think it can be a 'precedent' itself because it worked the opposite way. I hope I'm making sense.

Thank you.

[elliotdelong]

I also was stuck between A & D.

For D, I agree with youmin.moon that the problem is the word "precedent".

The Congress doesn't WANT the President to have unlimited discretion over deploying troops. So they enacted the War Powers Resolution to stop this from happening.

Therefore, the "invasion of Cambodia" does NOT serve as a precedent for a new interpretation of the President's authority to deploy troops.

If anything, the "invasion of Cambodia" is what PREVENTS a "new interpretation" of the President's authority.

Does this make sense?

-----

Here is my analysis of the other answer choices:

A: Correct answer for the following reasons.

1. The passage explicitly states that Cambodia was undertaken without the consent of congress in lines 29-34.

2. The passage states that the intent & spirit of the Constitution is for Congress to be involved in deploying troops. See (line 20-21) and line (60-61)

B: Incorrect.

The passage never states that the invasion of Cambodia "galvanized" support for the War Powers Act. It just says that the invasion was a "turning point" for Congress' tolerance of the President's actions

Also, the War Powers Resolution did NOT lead to an expansion of presidential authority. For example, Nixon tried to expand his role by having unlimited discretion in deploying troops (line 35-36). However, paragraph 3 shows that the Act actually puts a lot of limits on what the President is allowed to do. For example, he/she has to consult with Congress, report on troops within 48 hours, end war involvement in 60 days, etc, etc.

C. Incorrect.

There is no mention that Cambodia was necessitated by a defense treaty.

D. Incorrect.

See reasons listed at beginning of this post.

E. Incorrect.

The invasion of Cambodia didn't "differ from the actions of past Presidents". Line 26 is explicit that the invasion of Cambodia was similar to the actions of Presidents. The passage states that historically, most presidents don't wait for Congressional approval when deploying troops. Line 31 further supports this position by giving an example of how Jefferson had a conflict with Barbary pirates.

[ohthatpatrick]

Fantastic explanation ... I have nothing clever to add.

[BarryM800]

I really hesitated with (A). The passage states in the last sentence that the resolution's assertion of congressional involvement is in accord with the intent and spirit of the Constitution, but wouldn't saying "lack of congressional involvement is a violation of the intent and spirit of the Constitution" be a mistaken negation? "In accord with" only suggests that there's no conflict, but it is still far from saying that congressional involvement is dictated/required. In addition, the first paragraph has already stated that this is a "hazy area." Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I really hesitated with (A). The passage states in the last sentence that the resolution's assertion of congressional involvement is in accord with the intent and spirit of the Constitution, but wouldn't saying "lack of congressional involvement is a violation of the intent and spirit of the Constitution" be a mistaken negation? "In accord with" only suggests that there's no conflict, but it is still far from saying that congressional involvement is dictated/required. In addition, the first paragraph has already stated that this is a "hazy area." Thanks!

RC is can be challenging because it requires both close reading and flexibility, and it's easy to focus on smaller details. I think the key here is that the question is asking about the author's opinion. We can support (A) because the author seems to be in favor of the resolution and seems critical of unilateral actions taken by the President without a declaration of war. That's enough.

The last sentence is talking about the resolution itself, not the author's opinion of it.

Hope this helps.