I see. So, the Judiciary and I would presume the Legislature are bound by constitutional and statutory law, but the Executive isn't, or something - at least when it comes to making war. What a novel approach. John Yoo would be so proud, as would Barack Obama circa 2011. He has made it a habit, much like Bush, to issue post-legislative statements that he isn't bound by the Act of Congress he just signed into law because he's special, or whatnot.
Are you sure you don't work in Obama's White House? Really, you'd fit right in.
If you're through "educating me" about the primacy of Executive power, you might want to read what Hamilton had to say in Federalist 69 with respect to this issue of Presidential war-making power, where he in part says...
“In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.”
Not enough? How about what Madison said in a letter to Jefferson the matter...
"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
Nothing you say or cite has anything to do with this conversation.
Whether the King had more authority than the President in 1789 is irrelevant. That Congress has considerable authority with respect to war making is not in dispute. I will try, one more time, to acquaint you with some basic facts about our constitutional order.
All branches of government are bound by the law, but all of them have to determine for themselves what the law requires. The Constitution is the supreme law and the President cannot be bound by a statute that, in his view, conflicts with the Constitution. Just as courts decide what the Constitution means for purposes of determining their own rules of decision and Congress decides what the Constitution means for purposes of determining what laws it can properly pass, the President determines what the Constitution means for purposes of performing the executive function. He decides what laws he can properly execute and what laws he cannot properly execute because they are unconstitutional.
Every President claims this prerogative. There is nothing controversial about it and it doesn’t amount to executive supremacy. The executive isn’t supreme, but neither is the judiciary and nor is the legislature. That is what separation of powers means.
Where, as with the War Powers Act, the judiciary will never weigh in on a question of constitutionality, the President’s responsibility to interpret the Constitution for himself is at it’s clearest. He isn’t going to get any advice from the Court, so he’s on his own. Congress and the President have to settle matters between themselves, and in this case they did so long ago.
Presidents have repeatedly concluded that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and Congress has repeatedly failed to vindicate it. As a result the question is now closed. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Nothing in our constitutional law is more settled and citing the Federalist Papers for general pronouncements about war powers under the Constitution is just silly.
I gather you don’t like this. You would like to see a revolution in constitutional law that made the War Powers Act relevant again. Fine, but it isn’t going to happen. Come back from Never Never Land and deal with present realities.