Replies

I say it because it is the law of the land. This is what Congress said in the War Powers Act of 1973:

Sec. 5 (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

This section is a tacit admission that the POTUS has the power to use military force without a congressional resolution or declaration of war.

Now that says nothing about Odipsticks wisdom or hypocrisy but it is the law of the land.

Congress has the power to pass a law tomorrow and shut him down and they should.

Hopefully though after we kill Ghadaffi since we owe him some 5.56 in the head for past deeds.

I think you overlooked this section:

SEC. 2. (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.

Further, a resolution does not change the Constitution -that would require an ammendment.

Finally, what you term "a tacit admission that the POTUS has the power to use military force without a congressional resolution or declaration of war" which is a violation of the Constitution EVEN if some resolution is interpreted to okay it IS REALLY a section that discussed congressional actions IF the president has engaged the military in a conflict. It does not claim the President can do it but rather what should happen IF he does.

Again -a resolution does not change the Constitution.

I suggest you keep it simple rather than trying to create special powers where none exist -the left does that well. We do not need to start doing it even if the ends might be good the means must remain lawful.

War Powers Act of 1973 also says...

SEC. 2. (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.

Which of those three circumstances are met by Libya?

“This section is a tacit admission that the POTUS has the power to use military force without a congressional resolution or declaration of war.”

Yeah, that´s surely what the founders intended - the power to wage war being determined “tacitly” by a very specific reading of legislation.

My take is that this is just a way of stating that congress always has the last word, regardless of how the President interprets the WPA.

I.e:

The President:”My fellow Americans. I have tonight taken the grave decision to invade Norway, as I was recently made sick by spoiled Lutefisk. This surely constitutes an “attack on the United States” under the WPA.”

Congress: “Uh, no it doesn´t.”

The President: “Sorry guys, but you already authorized this attack under the WPA.”

Congress: “Look, your bullshit interpretation doesn´t mean anything. Look here at Sec.5 (c). Now get our forces out of Oslo!”

If your interpretation of Sec.5 (c) being a universal endorsement of any Presidential military action, the rest of the act would be unnecessary. Congress could merely step in whenever they felt the President was starting too many wars.

But that´s not how the actual act looks - for good reason. Stopping an ongoing war is a very different action from starting one in the first place.