Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NonValueAdded
I’m not so sure the “unconstitutionality” of the War Powers Act is so cut-and-dried.

The Act was written purposefully to skirt around the Constitution - they knew what they were doing.

But any rational analysis says that the President cannot start a war (i.e. initiate hostilities against a legitimate sovereign government) without Congress declaring it, and that he cannot have the resources to conduct any military action at all unless Congress signs the check.

However, once Congress signs the check to fund the armed forces, he is the Commander in Chief of those armed forces and can deploy them in any way he sees it necessary to execute his legal responsibilities - for example enforcing UN resolutions.

The WPA is an attempt by Congress to keep their powers while taking away some of the President's.

97 posted on 06/15/2011 2:23:32 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]


To: wideawake

The “Govern and Regulate” and “Necessary and Proper” clauses of Article I, Section 8 cannot be ignored. They too apply to the armed forces just as the “Raise and Support” clause does. We have to take the Constitution as a whole.


104 posted on 06/15/2011 2:32:12 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (From her lips to the voters' ears: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: ‘We own the economy’ June 15, 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson