You should have stopped right there. Everything that comes after, is wrong.
In this country, acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't have to validate any law the Legislature passes. Put another way, laws enacted by Congress are constitutional until the Supreme Court says that they aren't. But, you knew that already, right?
Whether or not the Court would hear a challenge to the War Power Resolution, or dismiss it as a nonjusticiable political question, until the Supreme Court says it's not constitutional, it is constitutional.
"It is a dead letter."
There you go again, using phrases you don't understand.
"To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about."
Whatever I do or do not know, it's pretty clear that we've established you don't have the frist clue about American jurisprudence.
Lastly, if the War Power Act didn't mean anything, as you suggest, why then did George HW Bush get an authorization for force in 1991, and why did his son get one 10-years later?
The question of the War Powers Act is not a legal one, it is a philosophical one. I do NOT want another White House occupant who believes the US Armed Forces is their own private diplomatic tool. Considering most founders didn't even want a standing army, it's unlikely to believe almost any of them would agree to the carte blanche presidents have exercised in their application of global military force.
Well said. And precisely the same point Palin made in her 5 point "Doctrinal" outlay. She has very recently replaced her foreign policy advisers. I am glad she did.
If this shift is responsible for her shift in policy constraint, I say "Well done." All presidents have advisers, as none can be stand-alone experts on every minutiae-strewn subject on the planet, nor is it either realistic or fair for us to expect them to be.
If her new advisor has affected her position, that, too is a good sign. A president who is incapable of changing their position is often a president who refuses to listen to sound advice, or who is more concerned with "Admitting they were wrong" than they are with "Getting it right."
Palin, in her choice of Schweizer (sp?), and in her 5 Point "Doctrine," certainly seems to be getting it right. And that's a very good thing, too, as she will be our next president. Anyone who disagrees with either of these two last statements is simply unaware of the breadth and depth of her brilliance, and her base.
;-\
The Supreme Court doesn't have the franchise on reading the Constitution. Each branch of government is responsible for exercising its own power constitutionally. No branch can wait for another’s permission before doing its constitutional duty.
You obviously know nothing about the constitutional system and nothing about the law. Here's a brief primer. The President has to decide for himself what his constitutional duties are. If the President concludes that his duty conflicts with the War Powers Act he is bound by his oath to ignore the War Powers Act. Congress can impeach him or it can use the power of the purse to bring him into line. When the President flouts the War Powers Act and Congress doesn't respond that is a constitutional precedent every bit as authoritative as any Supreme Court opinion. It means the law is invalid. A series of such precedents settles the matter beyond the possibility of rational dispute and we have a series of such precedents.
Of course Presidents get authorization for the use of force. They would be foolish to undertake any serious military action without consolidating political support for it. They are very careful, however, never to suggest that they are required to seek authorization under the law. They frequently consult with Congress “in accord with” but not “pursuant to” the War Powers Act. That is precisely because they are unwilling to set any precedent that might contradict the history which establishes so clearly that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
You are way, way out of your depth here. Read more, write less.