The War Powers Resolution

Hello,

I wanted to address some mis-characterizations of the war powers resolution in this thread.

Some might even owe C4K an apology since he is the one who really got it right. I could quote from my government class but since wiki was used in the thread, this is a quote from the wiki:

For starters, there is a lot of debate as to the legality of the War Powers Resolution so this is one the SCOTUS would really have to decide if it were pushed. Because the president is Commander in Chief, the resolution in effect reallocates the powers set forth by the constitution which under the doctrine of Separation of Powers, Congress has no authority to do this. It is true the president can't declare war but Armies do march at his command which is why Congress passed the resolution. Likewise, Congress can't command armies (not according to the constitution). That is the separation of powers built into the constitution.

Secondly, the Congress used the GOP hated "necessary and proper" clause of the constitution when passing this resolution so it's strange to see anyone on the right endorsing it's validity.

But, to sum up the resolution, it only makes the president accountable to the Congress but Congress can't remove his constitutional power to command the armies. Sure it gives guidelines on when he can freely engage our forces in a perfect world but the resolution mostly makes the presidents actions subject to their review (which they were not before, only to get a declaration of war which is the job of the Congress).

IF the president does commit our forces without the consent of Congress (which many presidents have done to include Reagan in Granada) he has 48 hours to notify congress. The War Powers Resolution then FORBIDS ARMED FORCES FROM REMAINING MORE THAN 60 DAYS WITH 30 DAYS WITHDRAWAL PERIOD. IOW, the president can commit troops for 60 days as long as he notifies congress within 48 hours. After the 60 days he has 30 days to withdraw the troops. So like C4K said, he has 90 days if you're using the resolution.

I think the president used the UN charter to authorize force but that's another thread.

What the resolution really does it gives Congress the means to get us out of an engagement deemed unpopular by Congress or the people (like Vietnam which is why it passed in 1973).

What surprises me most was the common spin on Fox was that the president took too long to engage because he waited on the UN. I believe one specifically said he "p****footed around". Many on that station wanted him to take Ghadafi out. If this were illegal, why wasn't this their initial criticism? Why are they saying he didn't use enough force?

Also, if the resolution were legal this would be an impeachable offense. The GOP led house hasn't tried to impeach the president even with all the partisan legislation they've passed...

PS... Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. So the house doesn't need the Democratic held Senate to impeach the president...

This is a direct quote from the constitution:

I figured as Christians you'd want to know the facts before you judge your brother of lying as the title of that thread indicates...