There's nothing controversial about that. Nobody has ever denied that Congress could defund any war, any time. The question is this: does the President have to go to Congress to wage aggressive not defensive war. Levin says it doesn't. You seem (?) to be arguing that Levin wants to "defund" the war. If so, could you provide evidence? If Levin does not support defunding, he is clearly (under his own doctrine!) a supporter of this war.
Did you read my post? I’ll try one more time.
“There’s nothing controversial about that. Nobody has ever denied that Congress could defund any war, any time.”
Correct. Levin’s position is not that its controversial, or that Congress can or cannot defund the war. His point is that the War Powers Act removes **the necessity** of congress to defund the war, and provides **political cover** so that Congress is able to require the executive to consult, thus removing the need to defund the war.
“The question is this: does the President have to go to Congress to wage aggressive not defensive war.”
The answer is this: The Constitution gives him a power to be Commander in Chief. But this power is limited by 1.) nature of the deployment, as explained in the Constitution, and 2.) funds.
“Levin says it doesn’t.”
No he doesn’t say that. He says the constitution **does** give him limited powers, and that if the Congress wants to exercise its check (funding) that they should do so. If they do not do so, then Congress is essentially granting assent to what the executive is doing. Further, Congress has an ingrained incentive to limit or to not limit the power of the executive, namely politics. Levin is arguing that this is all a part of the constitutional balance of power.
“You seem (?) to be arguing that Levin wants to “defund” the war. If so, could you provide evidence?”
No. I am arguing that Levin wants Congress to exercise its constitutional powers if it chooses to do so.
“If Levin does not support defunding, he is clearly (under his own doctrine!) a supporter of this war.”
The question of whether or not he supports defunding is a separate question than the more important question, which is: How is Congress to exercise its check on the executive branch? What is the most appropriate way for Congress to do so? The Constitution sets forth one mechanism for this check against executive power. The War Powers Act sets for an entirely different mechanism.
So again, as in my earlier post, I reiterate that to take a very complex argument about how Congress and the President should exercise their Constitutional powers, and boil it down to whether or not Levin supports the invasion of Libya is simplistic at best and also misses the larger and more important point, which is this: If Congress, a representative body in a republic, wishes to exercise its power of funding, it should do so. If not, it should not. And, also important, is that with this mechanism(the original Constitutional mechanism, not the War Powers Act), each individual member of Congress must take a stand on the issue of funding. If individual citizens disagree, they can express themselves with their vote.
This is what Levin was talking about when he made this point, missed by some.