Anyone here read the War Powers Act? It's pretty short and straightforward.

[MannyGoldstein]

I just read most of it. Pretty straightforward stuff:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html

Seems like the President has to stop all "hostilities" in 60 days unless Congress authorizes:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

The report referred to is required for any hostilities: you can read it here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html

Am I missing anything here?

[provis99]

1. the White House is clearly breaking the law. So what?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Of course.

Never mind.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. And your evidence for said would-be deaths is...?

Thanks in advance.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Does it cover actions via the UN?

[jberryhill]

6. NATO... and, no, it doesn't /nt

[MannyGoldstein]

13. So if NATO declares war on Russia

Th WPA doesn't apply?

[Hosnon]

15. Only Congress can declare war. However, it would probably be fairly easy to get around that,

because the President can make war without Congress' consent (i.e., if a state of war exists, he can participate without Congressional approval).

So if everyone wanted to go to war with Russia, have NATO attack to provoke a response from Russia against the U.S. Then the President would be within his constitutional authority to use the U.S. military against Russia.

[Enrique]

17. why wouldn't it? n/t

[jberryhill]

20. Treaty > statute

[Hosnon]

21. Treaty = statute. Chronology determines which trumps. nt.

[Enrique]

22. that's a good point, NATO is a treaty

but is every NATO operation a treaty obligation? I doubt it. Is every NATO country involved in every NATO operation? definitely not. It's up to each country whether they participate in these wars.

[Hosnon]

23. Statutes and treaties are on par with each other. If the NATO treaty says "X" but the

WPA says "not X", "not X" is the law (as the WPA was passed after the NATO treaty was ratified (1973 vs. 1949)).

So, assuming the WPA is constitutional, it must be adhered to over the NATO treaty if there is a conflict between the two. Now, whether the WPA is constitutional is another question.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. It's the law, and it's never been contested

There's a reason why it hasn't been challenged: it's beautifully crafted within the spirit and provisions of the Constitution.

Congress has the right to delineate enumerated powers and craft laws to govern their exercise under the necessary and proper clause. It cites this as its justification, and goes on to effectively describe what "war" is, and in what cases the President may initiate one.

Monarchic tin-horn would-be dictators hate the Resolution and hope to chip away at its authority by the precedents of violation. It's sickening and deeply, deeply morally dishonest.

There's no "assuming the WPA is constitutional, it must be adhered to", IT'S THE STANDING LAW, AND HAS BEEN FOR ALMOST 38 YEARS. Both houses of Congress passed it, the President vetoed it, and they overrode the veto; it's THE LAW. Fuck whether people like it, it's the law it's the law it's the law.

(I'm not mad at you, I'm mad at the ambient dismissive attitude toward this law and the grotesque misinterpretations of it.)

Unless Congress wants to initiate some military action and votes it through, the ONLY situation where a President may introduce forces into hostilities is IF WE ARE ATTACKED. That's it, period. It's crazy: it's as plain as day, obviously worded and settled law.

[Hosnon]

28. Sorry, it's just not that simple.

If Congress passed a law limiting the Presidential term to three years, the President vetoed it, and Congress over-rode that veto, your position dictates that Congress has effectively amended the Constitution and the term of the Presidency is three years. That is patently wrong.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Entirely wrong. US law supersedes treaties.

There are two types of treaties regarding military involvement: self-actuating and non self-actuating.

If a treaty is signed that says that a certain action triggers our military involvement, then that takes precedent. The UN Charter is NOT one of these, and the UN Participation Act of 1945 is brutally clear about this: the President may make a special agreement with the Security Council to make forces available, but may NOT send them unless this agreement is authorized by both houses of Congress. Period.

NATO is a self-actuating treaty: if any member nation is attacked, the President may take military action. This didn't happen in this case.

[Hosnon]

26. No it doesn't. They are equal; time determines supremacy.

A treaty ratified after a statute trumps said statute, and vice versa.

[Enrique]

18. yes n/t

[joshcryer]

29. Yes, he used statutory authorization and withdrew hostilities in 12 days.

[OnyxCollie]

7. "Laws" are now "suggestions." nt

[hulka38]

8. Dude, I'd still like to know where my country is. n/t

[Hosnon]

9. Yes.

We all agree that Congress cannot pass a law that diminishes the constitutional authority of the President, right? For example, if Congress passed a law that said the term of the Presidency is 3 years, said law, although clear, wouldn't be valid.

One of the primary arguments against the WPA is that it is an attempt by Congress to diminish the constitutional authority of the President as Commander in Chief. The founders specifically replaced "make war" with "declare war", which supports the argument that the President has authority to take military action absent a declaration by Congress (the best example being to repel an invasion).

To the extent that the WPA does, in fact, unconstitutionally diminish the President's military authority, it isn't valid.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. But Obama specifically says he's not challenging the

Constitutionality of it. Nor did Bush.

[Hosnon]

11. Because they think they can win on narrower grounds.

I.e., that regardless of constitutionality, this action is outside the scope of the WPA.

If the issue were ever pushed and it got to the Supreme Court, I'd be extremely surprised if the larger argument were not made.

I think the only President to affirmatively acknowledge the constitutionality of the WPA was Carter. And Obama included the magic language in his notice to Congress: that said notice was being sent "consistent with" the WPA, not "pursuant to" it.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. He's arguing that blowing stuff up with drones is not a hostile act

I don't see that.

[Hosnon]

14. I'm not saying I agree with him.

I'm just pointing out the murky legal zone which the WPA inhabits.

[NorthCarolina]

16. Some Presidents are above the law though.....don'cha know? nt

[robcon]

19. It's straightforward and unconstitutional.

n/t

[boppers]

25. Is every CIA operative subject to WPA?

Was the bin laden operation a violation?

At what point does an action become "hostilities"?

[joshcryer]

30. Yeah, I was more taken by the fact that the congress ignored the congressional priorty procedures...

...completely and utterly.

And that all in all liberals are being played by the lying GOP congress. Played like a fiddle.