Replies

The War Powers Act gives him the authority to do what he is doing.

Actually, I don't think it does.

150 USC 1541(c): The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

There is no declaration of war, there is no statutory authorization as far as I know, and there is no attack on US territory or armed forces.

The 48-hour report requirement doesn't override these basic restrictions on the prerequisites for commencing hostilities against a foreign nation. And launching Tomahawk missiles into sovereign territory counts as "hostilities."

The separation of Powers Doctrine in the Constitution doesn't allow for Congress to restrict the President by legislation. The part of the law you are reading is the Congress' interpretation of the President's Constitutional powers. Since interpreting the law is the Judicial Branches' job, that is just their opinion.

All that having been said, the war powers act was the democrats way of trying to restrict republican presidents like Nixon from acting without their approval. There is a real question whether or not the whole thing is constitutional. Congress can not tell the President what he can and can't do with the Military. They can Defund the operation, but he is the CIC.

This has never really been before the Supreme Court and it isn't going to be. Suffice it to say, what you are reading are not "restrictions" they are "interpretations" of the Constitutional powers of the President. The whole "law" is suspect, that's why it is just a joint resolution.