[jwalsh07]

Do you see amibiguity here?

---

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[ez]

This part is particularly interesting.

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

[Cacophonous]

My concern is that the Constitution is also unambiguous, and supercedes and governs anything Congress does. The resolution passed was not in accordance with the Constitution; by itself, it is against the law, because they did not follow the Constitution and formally declare war.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and it may merely be a matter of semantics, and will probably (hopefully) have no impact on the war efforts. I think the long-term effects to the Constitution and to our structure of government--i.e., the President having having Constitutionally-limited powers--will be more profound.

But I would like Congress to be able to held to account. As things stand, they won't be.