The War Powers Resolution

[LeBuick]

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:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

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:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

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...

 

[Salty]

Lebuick has it right, but I would like to add a couple of things. The House can impeach a President, however that is basically just an indictment. The US House has only impeached two Presidents, Johnson (1868) and Clinton 1998-99. Neither President was convicted by the Senate. (Nixon resigned before he would have been impeached).

As far as the War Powers Act, yes a President can initially commit the troops, but Congress does hold the purse strings - just another part of the separation of powers.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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:






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...

Aw, gee, thanks

BTW, I missed a lot here. I was in the States in North Alabama when the storms hit and had virtually no contact with the 'outside world' for about a week. Fortunately we were safe and only lost power where we were.

 

[carpro]

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
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.

None of which apply to Libya.

IOW 48 hours and sixty days don't matter unless it meets the above criteria.

The Libyan action clearly doesn't.

 

[billwald]

None of which applies to Afghanistan or Iraq, either.

 

[carpro]

Bush had Congressional (statutory) authorization for both.

 

[billwald]

Pass a law authorizing the invasion of a sovereign nation? Why do you suppose the Constitution mentions a procedure for declaring war?