The only legal reason is a Congressional Declaration of War.
To: exodus
It doesn't matter how loud you yell, you're still wrong.
"The War Powers Act of 1973"
# 98 by jwalsh07
Gracious, a link would have worked much better, jwalsh07
The War Powers Act is un-Constitutional. Congress does not have the authority to delegate ANY legislative power to the Executive branch.
Regardless, I've already read the War Powers Act, and it doesn't say what you think it says.
It DOES NOT give the President power to wage war as he sees fit. It is a LIMITATION on the war powers already usurped by Presidential officeholders since WW 2. It passed over the veto of President Nixon, and has been disregarded by every President since it's passage, including both Presidents Bush.
The President is limited to 8 months of un-sanctioned military action, and then, "...the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces..." [SEC. 5. (b)]
We have been bombing the nation of Iraq for years, without a Declaration of War, and without the specific authorization of Congess, in direct violation of the War Powers Act.
The War Powers Act is the law of the land whetehr you like it or not. If you think it's unconstitutional, then you should have Ron Paul challenge it in court. He, at least, has standing to do so.
And the reason I didn't provide a link is because some folk just need the truth right between the eyes. Like you for instance. :-}
You can scream all you want about this and that being unconstitutional but I don't want to hear you say again that the Congressional Authorizations are not legal because it's a lie. They are the current law of the land.
Cite?
So why isn't Paul objecting on the grounds that the WPA is un-Constitutional instead of suggesting that Bush should seek a formal declaration from Congress per the WPA? And please, don't say that suggesting that the Constitution be followed is the same as saying that the WPA doesn't follow it. Those are two separate arguments, and Paul only makes one.