War Powers Act: Is it or Isn't It?

AH-64D, Apache Longbow

Update:  Congress has belatedly decided to do its constitutional duty under the War Powers Act and authorize the use of the US military to fight the Libyan civil war against its least favorite Middle East despot, Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi.  Senators Kerry and McCain, both Vietnam veterans, formally introduced the resolution which does not refer to the law on Monday, but Senate Majority Leader Reid said a vote will not come until after the Senate's Memorial Day recess. Obamatron expressed his willingness to accept bi-partisan recognition of his near god-like power of life or death anywhere in the world after the expiration of the Act's sixty day deadline. Yesterday, NATO again conducted nighttime air raids on the center of Tripoli.  The apparent targets are Qaddafi's compound in the Bab al-Aziziya district and the Tripoli television center which is located in the densely populated city center.  According to one foreign doctor working in the city, there are four schools located next to the TV center and about 250 meters away is the children's hospital of al-Jala.  There have been civilian casualties as the result of the more than 2500 NATO air attacks.  Britain and France have announced they intend to use attack helicopters [photo] in tactical support of rebel troops, further escalating the conflict's intensity far beyond the original UN mandate of aerial interdiction to prevent mass civilian casualties.

{20.5.11}One of the major reasons Washington keeps replaying the same old wartime tunes, is that it never gets its mojo right in the first place. Let US Person explain. The War Powers Act was passed by both houses of Congress in 1973. The United States was withdrawing from the morass of Vietnam pursuant to Tricky Dick's 'secret plan' to end the war. The Paris Peace accord negotiated by Henry Kissinger was signed in January, but the end of the fighting was still two years away. The bill was passed by both houses in July of 1973, but Nixon vetoed it. In November 1973 the President's veto was overridden and the bill became law. The question of the Act's constitutionality continues to be debated to this day, and several presidents of both parties have ignored its applicability to the commitment of federal troops to various military actions around the globe. Two primary constitutional objections exist: the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine, and/or the Act violates the presentment clause by establishing an impermissible "legislative veto". Details of the reasoning involved are just a click away, so US Person will hasten to the point of this post.

Despite the constitutional debate the War Powers Act is the law of the land, and deserves Presidential compliance until and unless there is a successful constitutional challenge in the US Supreme Court. That is how the American system is supposed to work, but our politicians seem to think that compliance is optional if they think a law stinks. Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) attitude is typical, "I have never recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, nor has any president, Republican or Democrat." Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee told reporters a resolution pursuant to the law was more trouble than it was worth. But the argument that the power to appropriate funds for a conflict is sufficient control over executive abuse is disingenuous since no senator has the considerable bravado to vote against funding once troops are in the field. In fact, Congress is shirking its duty to help delineate the extent of a law on a fundamental issue both houses deemed important enough to pass over a presidential veto during a war. Undeclared conflicts have proliferated since the Korean "police action", and the extent of Congressional authority for war making is distressingly and expensively vague beyond the appropriation process. If a war is worth fighting in the government's collective opinion they ought to be willing to say so in writing. That is what Richard Lugar (R-IN) thinks and several other senators agree with him. Let Obamacon declare the law invalid if he thinks it is unconstitutional, or follow the law's parameters in our involvement in Libya. Allowing him to sleep walk pass the issue of war is just more of the deceitful enabling for which Washington is justly famous.