Question about the War Powers Act:

[neuvocat]

Can anyone tell me what the basis is for arguing that the War Powers Act is considered unconstitutional? Ford, Reagan and Carter have all said this and other than the oath that a president takes, I don't know what basis this argument has. Any help is highly appreciated. Thanks.

[happyslug]

1. The Constitutional issue is the President Commander in Chief Powers.

The basic premise is it RESTRICTS what the President can do as Commander in Chief of the Military. Under the War Powers Act, the President can do anything he wants with the Military for 60 days, but then MUST withdraw them unless he gets Congressional approval. The Presidents have called this a unconstitutional restriction on the President's Commander in Chief Power.

Congress, on the other hand, says the Constitution gives its the Exclusive right to DECLARE WAR and SET THE BUDGET. If the President has an unlimited right to use troops as he sees fit, then the Congress's right to Declare war is meaningless. The Right to Declare war MEANS SOMETHING, and in the WAR POWERS ACT, Congress said it is the long term use of the Military.

This dispute is NOT new, Alexander Hamilton Advised John Adams abut how far Adams could go without approval of Congress in what is called the "Undeclared war with France (roughly late 1790s). Hamilton told Adams that if a French Ships attacked an American ship in American Waters, the President had the right, without congressional approval, to sent out ships to rescue that American Ship and drive the French Ship from US waters, but the President would have to ask Congresses agreement if the President decided to go further than US Territorial waters.

Under interpretation by people who attended the Constitutional Convention, Congress seems right and the War Powers Act is Constitutional. On the other hand, the conditions today are a lot different then in the 1790s so faster response on a larger Scale may be needed.

One last Comment, They are liberals who dislike the War Powers Act for while it requires Congressional approval after 60 days, it give the President the CLEAR RIGHT to do anything he wants during that 60 day period. These Liberals believe this gives the President the Congressional approval for what ever he does in that 60 day period. THese Liberals believe that the what Hamilton told Adams in the 1790s is true today, anything that is NOT A RESPONSE TO A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE US, needs Congressional approval, even if you are going after people who did such an attack on the US (If they are retreating from the US). Just a Comment on the War Powers Act.

The War Powers Act would NOT have Stopped Johnson from going into Vietnam, he had the approval in the Bay of Tonkin's Resolution (Johnson had enough power over Congress to get it past with out much trouble). During Desert Storm I and the Bush jr's attack on Iraq, Congress provided the Approval before Fighting By US troops started. Thus the War Powers Act has never been tested.

[neuvocat]

2. Thanks a million!!!

:D