President Obama's sixty day window to receive congressional authorization of the continuing War on Libya expired yesterday, but from a Constitutional and traditional standpoint it doesn't matter what Congress authorizes, because the President's command over all American forces is undeniable.
Not one American President, especially Richard Nixon, has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and the courts have never once ruled against an executive who orders American soldiers into combat on his watch. Regardless of what Congress does or doesn't say about it.
Keep in mind that the 1973 War Powers Act is not synonymous with the United States Constitution, and many speculate it would be overturned if challenged in the federal judiciary.
Do not get me wrong - I entirely support President Obama's decision to get the support of Congress, especially since they can broaden the mission and open the possibility of American forces on the ground, but this War on Libya is legal with or without approval from Congress.
That's just the truth, and nothing but it.
What say you?
This is absolute nonsense. A few weeks ago you were citing the War Powers Act as the justification for this war. Now you say it's irrelevant...but are you also saying the constitution is irrelevant? Because it very clearly states that while the president is the commander in chief, only congress can declare a war. Alexander Hamilton noted that this division would ensure a president's powers are far inferior to a king's. (Federalist #69). To say, then, that it "doesn't matter what congress authorizes" and maintain it is legal for a president to both declare and wage war is not the truth at all, it is a flat out lie.
ReplyDeleteThat is not true. The war powers act states that the president has power for 90 days and then congress can take action. do your research!
ReplyDelete