Former President Bush's doctrine—stating that the United States would strike first against terrorists and their supportive states, to preempt rather than to react to attacks—elicited serious concerns that Congress would lose even more of its already declining power over foreign policy and the use of military power abroad. Such preemptive use of military power by the president would almost certainly violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution. How successful has the policy been? Should it be preserved or eliminated?

The policy of  preemptive striking has not been successful and has caused much tensions for the US

It must not be preserved.

Explanation:

The world has been moving away and away from two state conflict and now most of the conflicts in Antioch are internal and not external.

This is the case for the places such as the eons in the middle east that were invaded by Bush quite unnecessarily and then the US  had been stuck in the war for decades and may have caused more harm than good.

It has led for the distrust of international community for the US too.

The people simply do no trust the US for war any more and this has been  concern.

in mcculloch v. maryland (1819) the supreme court ruled that congress had implied powers under the necessary and proper clause of article i, section 8 of the constitution to create the second bank of the united states and that the state of maryland lacked the power to tax the bank.

gibbons v. ogden, (1824), was a landmark decision in which the supreme court of the united states held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to congress by the commerce clause of the united states constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation.