[Eagle Eye]

There are more than a few non-liberal people who believe that if the US is going to wage war that Congress should declare war. If the US has enough evidence to justify an attack on any sovereign nation, then it owes it to the country and military or declare war before or with the attack.

The War Powers act goes against the ideal that the Constitution intended for war to be a decision by the legislative, not the executive branch. It removes the accountability from congress.

A congressional declaration removes any ambiguity and commits full support to the military, something we didn't see in Korea, Viet Nam, or even now.

Supporting the War Powers Act, IMO, supports legislation that shortcuts that Constitution. It is just on more little piece torn from the document.

Caveat: this does not mean that the US must declare war to send in Marines to secure an embassy or to otherwise respond to immediate direct threats to national security or national interests such as Grenada or Panama. Bombing asprin factories would be out, however.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

There are more than a few non-liberal people who believe that if the US is going to wage war that Congress should declare war. If the US has enough evidence to justify an attack on any sovereign nation, then it owes it to the country and military or declare war before or with the attack.

Perhaps, but the liberal Ithacite clearly believes that there should be NO war and is hiding behind the "war powers" argument and is arguing FOR a constitution that he most likely doesn't abide by when it suits him otherwise.