Not true.

It wasn’t necessary for the first years of 184 years of this country’s existance. Article II of the Constitution gives wide authority to the President to wage war irrespective of Congress.

Significantly, EVERY president since enactment has publicly disagreed with the premise that the Executive cannot act without Congressional approval to deploy and use military force.

The War Powers Act was intended, post-Vietnam, to tie the President’s hands until and unless BOTH houses of Congress affirmatively approved any use of military force. However, the US Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983) ruled that such “legislative vetoes” are unconstitutional, and that Congress only has the power to pass joint resolutions (i.e., a “public law”) that must be presented to the President for signature or veto.

The War Powers Act affirms the provisions in Article II of the Constitution that the President has independent authority to use military force, though it attempts to spell these out as specific instances.

While the Act attempts to impose time limits on both consultations and war-fighting without Congressional approval, the Supreme Court has not ruled these provisions to be Constitutional, and they appear to me to be “legislative vetoes.” I believe that with respect to military combat, Congress is limited only to cutting off the funds by passing a public law with the President’s signature or by overriding the President’s veto.

Clearly, Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton agreed, because that is how they behaved. Though each President notified Congress “consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” (the term of art they utilized), Congress was not consulted BEFORE the deployment of military forces, a requirment of the Act.

Some members of Congress even say that the War Powers Act effectivly died on 4 August 1993, when US forced engaged in combat in Somalia starting on June 5, and Congress “looked the other way” when the statutory 60 day deadline passed and our troops remained in combat without Congressional approval.

See? Anyone can write a letter.

If they gain ALL of the seats in the house and the senate, what will they have really gained when our enemies are lighting up nukes from coast to coast?

Come on Press, ask them! You say we have the right to know. We want to know.

Senator Clinton, you recently signed a letter to President Bush which alleges that he (and presumably any President) has no right to act vis a vis Iran without prior Congressional approval.

If you are elected President, will you disregard the 60 day provision of the War Powers act and wait for Congress to act before you take any military action, ever, no matter how dire the circumstances and imminent the threat?

Hillary: Yes, illegal aliens should have driver’s licenses.

Question for Hillary:

Senator Clinton, you recently signed a letter to President Bush which alleges that he (and presumably any President) has no right to act vis a vis Iran without prior Congressional approval.

If you are elected President, will you disregard the 60 day provision of the War Powers act and wait for Congress to act before you take any military action, ever, no matter how dire the circumstances and imminent the threat?

Mr. Russert?

Nicely done. Bryan, is it too late for the “10 Questions” circle jerk?

Last year I predicted that Bush would eventually win in Iraq and it would be in the summer of 08, just in time for the election. Considering I am right 99.85% of the time, I figured I expose myself as being wrong so as to mitigate the anger of the cs deven haters. (Hey, they need a break from having to deal with me always being right). The surge is working and it looks like we are going to have success in Iraq, but I was wrong about the time. I apologize for misleading everyone. My bad.

Now, WHY is Bush going after Iran, opening the door for the dems to segue into another situation that keeps the anti-”defend the US with force” crowd in the national spotlight without having to take their lumps on being so totally wrong on the Iraq war?

A couple of scenarios:

1) He is inept
2) The plan is to get the dems back out on the “America is at fault” limb so he can saw it off and thusly exposing them as having a disturbing pattern of going against the best interests of this country for their quest for power.
3) We know Iran is a serious threat, and Bush is going to get serious about this and 8itch-slap aloonyboonyjob back into the obscurity he belongs in.

If you are elected President, will you disregard the 60 day provision of the War Powers act and wait for Congress to act before you take any military action, ever, no matter how dire the circumstances and imminent the threat?
Buy Danish on November 2, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Of course she will! That way, she can never be blamed (nor will she ever have to take responsibility) for anything at all — ever.

Senator Clinton, you recently signed a letter to President Bush which alleges that he (and presumably any President) has no right to act vis a vis Iran without prior Congressional approval.

If you are elected President, will you disregard the 60 day provision of the War Powers act and wait for Congress to act before you take any military action, ever, no matter how dire the circumstances and imminent the threat?

Here’s a better idea. The RNC should make a Where’s Waldo thing out of it and hold a contest where citizens point out all the ways this piece of idiocy ignores the founding documents and over 200 years of executive power.

Personally, I think the War Powers Act should be repealed. It was done by Congress so that they didn’t have to take on any responsibility for the next Vietnam. It gives the POTUS flexibility in using the military branch of the instruments of power but that is already provided by the Constitutional role of CINC. Mostly the WPA gives Congress a way to blame 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for an “unpopular war we never signed up for” and that’s precisely what the “rats” and RINOs are doing vis-a-vis Iraq when attempting to placate their strident moonbat constituency. If Congress doesn’t want to support the war, that lack of support needs to be clear and unambiguous with the consequences of that lack of support firmly at the foot of Capitol Hill.