- #211
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,482
- 10,812
While that's a popular view, particularly with those in Congress, it isn't universally agreed to be true and more to the point, Congress has never chosen to challenge a President under the War Powers Resolution. My view is that Congress(es) knows or is afraid that if they challenge the President, the War Powers Resolution will be struck down. And at the very least, it's nice to keep around so they can beat a President over the head with it without ever actually invoking it.alt said:Your post is poignant. This following is very interesting IMO.
Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde
Still, I believe the President at least owes the public an explanation for invoking military force, which he hasn't done do the satisfaction of many including the Speaker: http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-asks-obama-for-better-explanation-of-libya/1
This probably also helps explain why support for this action is lower than for our last four military actions (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Somalia): http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ans-back-obama-on-libya-but-not-a-majority-/1
I'm sure the continued nebulosity over who is in charge and what level of force we will be committing doesn't help either.
Last edited by a moderator: