Talk:War Powers Resolution

Citing Op-Ed Academic Sources??

We're citing op-eds now as an academic basis for bold claims? Sure, Washington Post Op-Ed was written by James Baker and Warren Christopher, both of which have impeccable credentials. But it's still an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed work. Honestly, we could and should do better. Per the Reliable_sources guidelines "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text."

1. ^ Baker III, James A.; Warren Christopher (July 8, 2008). "Put War Powers Back Where They Belong". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08baker.html. Retrieved 2008-07-09. "We believe our proposal is good for the presidency because it would eliminate a law that every president since Richard Nixon has treated as unconstitutional..."

Dougbateman (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I second your concern, particularly per Glenn Greenwald's op ed being cited regarding 'congressional approval'. Jan civil (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

AllExperts?

Why are significant sections of this article identical in wording to War Powers Resolution at AllExperts? Unseelie 06:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

This afternoon I tried to improve a confusing run-on sentence by switching phrases around (see the history page). I'm still not satisfied... I don't know enough about this. Have listed on Pages needing attention. - dcljr 05:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed this article from Pages needing attention. - dcljr 17:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sections removed?

Why were several sections removed on Sept. 1 by an unregistered user? I think the (now removed) "Provisions" section, in particular, is critical to the article. (objectivity note: I did not contribute any of the removed material.) Thorne 11:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably vandalism. Reverted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.219.255.117 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-03T20:43:09.

Sections where removed again by someone 4/26/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostAxiom (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rework

This article needs some rework. It mentions little about the historical context in which the resolution was passed, it mentions nothing of the controvery about INS v. Chadha and it devotes the bulk of the article to questions about its constitutionality with little mention of the weak points of these arguments. As an example, it presents US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 as if it has implied priority over Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 (war declaration power of Congress, which Bobbitt non-chalantly belittles as a "contemporary textual preconception" reserved only for total wars). - ionel 20 February 2006

The section on constitutionality is not very clear. It gives sources of people who complain about the constitutionality and some counterpoints, but no illuminating points as to what the issue is with the law's constitutionality, the arguments back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.65.99 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I moved the NPOV tag, because there is no longer any commentary about the current US Iraq conflict, other than reference to the AUMF and the fact it cited the War Powers Act, which is factual. I added the INS v. Chadha summary, as discussed in detail below. The only remaining NPOV section are the various questions about constitutionality -- and I renamed that section for that reason. Coragryph 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Declaring War in the United States

December 7, 2005

Recently, the Website Yahoo News exhibited an article (Reuters News Article, “US skewed evidence of 1964 Tonkin Attack: document”, December 2, 2005) about the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which led to the escalation of the second Indochina War or what is more commonly known as the Vietnam War.

The article mentioned that National Security Agency Historian Robert Hanyok cited in a article he wrote that U.S. intelligence officials withheld a majority of the intelligence on the August 4, 1964 alleged North Vietnamese attack on two U.S. naval destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. Hanyok’s article shows how far that U.S. government officials (especially, government officials in the executive branch of the U.S. government system) will go to create a case for the United States to go war. I understand that in certain cases where a good and convincing case can be made to go to war that going to war might be a necessary step that our nation needs to take like the past and present historical examples of the Second World War and the international war versus Al-Qaeda’s ideology. However, in certain cases the case that was made for the U.S. going to war appeared not to be as strong as it could have been like the cases that were made by U.S. government officials for going to war in Vietnam and currently Iraq.

The power to declare that a state of war exist between the United States and some “enemy” or “enemies” lies with the U.S. Congress in the legislative branch of the U.S. government system. The U.S. Congress should only approve a declaration or resolution for making war based on a case of 99.9 percent assuredly made by U.S. government officials in the executive branch of the U.S. government system. Making war is a serious thing and a thing that should be considered very carefully before undertaking such a drastic step.

Anon User. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.222.47 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-24T00:35:55.

Which makes me think of another related topic, since there is no declared war against country X, then they are not actually an official enemy. And all those politicians politicking about talking about "our enemies" are totally full of it. And any such court case brought against any single individual with relation to an "enemy" is total nonsense and shouldn't receive 15 minutes in court. Would you look at that...their semantic games to prop up false wars to defend dishonorable empire fall just like that. There is definately not any sort of constitutional authority that authorizes any branch of government to name an "enemy" and thus it be so. So...there you have it. It's a topic somewhat related to war making authorizations, but if someone else feels what I have written should be taken down, feel free. User:VeriGGlater 14:13 5 April, 2007

Questions Regarding Constitutionality (Previously Basis of Legality)

I was reading under this section and found nothing but opinions that have the view that the War Powers Resolution infringes on powers that executives supposedly legitimately have.

I was part expecting to find the opinion that War Powers Resolution was a give-away to militarists. That rather than challenging the executive's (coming of the Richard Nixon years and seeing how out of hand things had gotten by allowing executives to get away with this stuff over and over again) use of military with anything BUT an actual declaration of war, bar an actual invasion, the traditionally conservative federal legislative branch caved in and gave the executive branch the War Powers Resolution instead. While there is no question that executives of the US have used military forces literally hundreds of times throughout its history without a congressional declaration of war, one must keep in mind this has been primarily done by a minority (actually) rule.

Take the electoral voting franchisement of minorities, women, and finally the civil rights era when minorities get franchisement enforcement re-promised to them. Up until women could vote, over half the population could not legally have official say. Today there is still a large percentage of the population that cannot vote, namely those under the age of 18, not getting into the arguement whether it would be a good or bad thing. About the time of enfranchisement of women, 1920, was also the beginnings of the modern era of Public Relations. Woodrow Wilson turning an isolationist, anti-war pubic on to a fiery war frenzy, after having been elected on keeping the US out of WW1 is a, if not the, prime historical example of the birthing years of Public Relations. One might also note the robber barons convincing the public that their time had come and gone, but actually hiding behind the legal shields of incorporation for protecting their ill-gotten ammassed wealth and continuing to promote change in laws and popular views of what corporations are. This era extended across the century with attempts to further democratize powers and society being denounced as communism during the Red Scare era commonly known as McCarthyism. With mass media, corporate control of it, the robber barrons and arrogant political elites who continue to distrust public opinion (along with a conservative elitist corporate owned media that covers mainly political elites and their opinions and is allergic to popular "regular people" or non-electoral political movements. -the wide-spread current popular support for impeachment of the current us president is a glaring prime example. The previous impeachment attempts or resolutions in support of such had not as wide support as the current one does-), Given the spot-light on political elites, i.e. congress, the major political parties, etc. as the main sources of news (and authority as to what is legal and even at times real), it is no wonder claims such as the executive having the ability to use the military without the congressional declaration, and attempts to even slightly curtail it as being unconstitutional, are given such weight and coverage over other contrary views. Namely that as above: a declaration of war by the congress is the only way an executive can use the military, baring an actual invasion. In which case, the constitution spells out quite clearly that an actual real defense of the country and its people can be done immediately. User:VeriGGlater 18:28 14 March, 2007

I was reading the article and noticed that it is primarily written from the point of view that the War Powers Resolution is legal, and that it is mostly someone explaining how the Iraq War is a violation of the Act. I don't believe that this is a very neutral article, so I simply added a NPOV notice. Joby10095 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an American and don't feel I have a dog in this fight (IMO the constitutional issues here are vague and the situations of the present weren't anticipated. But the style towards the end has a rather strident tone, and there's really no need at all for capslock passages, it looks almost like a message board fight. Whatever the struggles over POV please strive for an appropriately serious style. No offence meant. 142.167.160.212 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Took me a sec, but I realized you were referring to one word in what I had typed in. So I took out the caps. I did not realize people took that as shouting. I just wanted emphasis. Although with fascism running the planet as now, shouting would not exactly be out of order. Caps just make it harder to read. Yes I do have bias, as all humans do. I do not pretend the a ficticious otherwise. User:VeriGGlater 11:29 5 April, 2007

I moved the NPOV tag to this section, since the rest of the article is now neutral. I also renamed the section "Questions Regarding Constitutionality" since at this point that is all they are -- questions that have not been resolved by the courts. I don't know how to make such opinion any more neutral than just defining what they do and do not address. Coragryph 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia articles should be evenhanded and show all sides. Shouldn't a properly written Wikipedia article be the same whether it is written by a Republican or a Democrat? (Of course, showing partisan schisms should be fine, if they are pertinent).http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_Powers_Resolution&action=edit&section=2 Editing Talk:War Powers Resolution (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my opinion, there is no room in Wikipedia articles for hot tempered tantrums, removal well sourced facts, or substitution of "opinions" for facts (especially if such opinions are stated without sources and are contrary to the hard facts). I feel that such actions amount to vandalism of Wikipedia, and should result in discipline or removal of the parties involved. My well sourced facts were removed and substituted for sourceless opinions which were contrary to the facts.

Example of my facts being removed for unsubstantiated opinions: It is a fact that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 stated it's purpose (as stated in it's statement of purpose) was to make sure that the president and Congress share war power (before and after hostilities), in order to comply with the Constitution. This fact, and the source that I posted with it) was removed and the exact opposite was posted without giving any source. Now the Wikipedia article says that the president is the sole arbiter of what is necessary and appropriate during war. I then showed that recent Supreme Court decisions shot down the arguments of the Bush Administration (and I gave sources for that, too). That information was also removed.

So, as it stands, the poster and his president both are dictators of the world with unlimited power to silence anyone with facts.

Please note that I am not angry, I not trying to insult anyone, nor am I trying to be rude. I merely object to the behavior of the person. By labeling his information "sourceless" and "factually incorrect," I am not trying to insult the person who posted it, I am merely pointing out that his behavior should not be acceptable in Wikipedia.

In my opinion, tug-of-war arguments in Wikipedia articles, which result rude behavior should not be allowed. (By "tug-of-war" I mean the continual removal of another person's facts and reposting of the same information. . .a war with another poster). I think that it is rude to remove facts which disagree with "undocumented opinions." I will not play this game of tug-of-war, because I feel that it harms Wikipedia. I think that it would be more appropriate to strengthen one's own position by using facts instead of opinions, and by documenting those facts, rather than obliterating the hard work of others that was meant to improve Wikipedia.

I'd like to point out that my posts take a great deal of time to research. It takes almost no time at all for someone to vandalize my work with wrong, unproven, and partisan information. They don't need to do hours of research to post incorrect information.

I think that we have a POV (Point of View) issue in this article. This issue (war power) lends itself to partisan opinion. Republicans want to support their president's assertion that he has absolute power to decide what is appropriate and necessary (preemptive war, torture, wiretapping US citizens, etc). The courts, Congress, many citizens, world views, and international authorities (such as the UN and parties to US treaties) disagree with Bush's positions, and US Supreme Court decisions show that Bush must comply with the Congressional decisions and international treaties (if the US signed those treaties). Bush's approval rating is only about 30 percent. That means that over 60% of Americans disagrees with his positions. Don't any of the people in the majority have a right to post hard facts supporting their side? Isn't it possible to present evenhanded information showing the viewpoints of both sides?

Can anyone dare to challenge a very very weak, already disproved, sourceless, partisan opinion posted in Wikipedia? Can those few, weak, highly partisan, posters continue to remove the evenhanded hard facts which are backed up with hard proofs and represent BOTH the majority and minority views? Do sourceless opinions of a few partisan Wikipedia hot-headed posters count more than the well-sourced ever-evolving hard facts of Supreme Court decisions, Congressional laws, and international treaties?

It's one thing to disagree with a fact, and it is quite another thing to remove the fact from public view.

Surely each Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a soapbox for just one person to assert his unsupported view that his president is the dictator of the United States during wartime?

Furthermore, I don't think that Wikipedia articles were meant to be forums for arguments. I think that Wikipedia articles are supposed to support facts and evenhanded viewpoints. To be evenhanded, we must show the reasoning of all sides. A single person with a proven wrong, and unsubstantiated viewpoint (representing a small portion of US citizens) should not be allowed to vandalize Wikipedia, and remove hard facts, in my opinion.

I reiterate, I am not calling someone stupid just because they don't use (or refuse to use) facts. However, their arguments are weak. Debates are supposed to start with facts, use logic, and, then reach a conclusion. Such conclusions carry more weight than conclusions reached by someone stomping their foot on the ground and declaring themselves to be correct. I don't think that we are supposed to debate in Wikipedia. I think that we are supposed to present evenhanded facts with good sources.

Example of evenhandedness:

Since the president was given the task of using necessary and appropriate war power to enforce UN resolutions, we should show the 23 reasons (listed in factcheck.org) that President W. Bush used to support his notion that he "should" topple the Saddam Hussein regime. We should also show Bush's reasons for thinking that he "could" legally topple the Saddam regime, too. We should also show the "facts" regarding the old balance and the continually evolving balance of power among the president, the courts, Congress, and international authorities). Certainly recent court decisions clarified limits of presidential power during war.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (I and II): http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338.P.pd

The link above is one example of a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the president. Apparently the courts disagree that Bush is a dictator by dint of war power.

Also, we must show the reasons that Bush felt that he could use war power to torture POWs and to use war power to illegally wiretap (and otherwise spy on) US citizens. To be evenhanded, we must also show reasons that the courts, international authorities (such as the UN), and Congress disagreed with Bush's war power assertions. My facts and citations were removed and opinions without citations were inserted. I tried to correct the "opinion" that the president of the United States has sole power to decide what is necessary and appropriate once a war is declared. (My citations: War Power Resolution of 1973, Hamdi v Rumsfeld 2004 (and Hamdi II), Hamdan v Rumsfeld 2006, etc). My corrections were removed and the "opinion" was reinserted. The War Power Resolution of 1973 clearly shows that the president and Congress must share war power (according to the War Power Resolution of 1973). Clearly the courts have found that the president must comply with international treaties (such as the Geneva Convention), and that the president does not have sole authority to decide how prisoners are interrogated (tortured, etc). Clearly the courts have found that the president must comply with the courts (Hamdi II, which is the appeal of Hamdi v Rumsfeld 2004), showed this. Clearly the courts and Congress agreed that the president must comply with Congressional decisions. The author put forth the idea that Congress cannot micro-manage a war. It is true that Congress is slow because many members of Congress must discuss and vote on decisions. But Congress has many powers to control wars. Congress can cut off funds (with partisan political ramifications. . .troop support issues). Congress can put limitations upon war power at the time it is granted (such as the limitations placed upon Bill Clinton in the 1998 resolution to aid Iraqi insurgents to take control of their own country without military intervention from US soldiers). And, finally, Congress can alter actions of the president (I showed citations for this, too). I don't think that it would serve Wikipedia to have a tug-of-war in the article itself with an author who refuses to prove his "opinions" and remove the facts and citations which disagree with his partisan opinions. I have no problem with someone expressing an "opinion" in a Wikipedia article, as long as they label it as such, properly attribute the opinion to a source, and respect the idea that those with opposing "facts" can also write. (User: Improve, 17:32 20 April, 2007)

The article above definitely illustrates why wikipedia is not a good source of information. Whoever wrote the response above is a delusional. (Reason) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.161.30 (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the fact that this article talks extensively about how this might not be constitutional, but not at all about any arguments for constitutionality. I'm not going so far as to add a {{NPOV}} tag, because I have no idea if there are any. But it seemed pretty biased towards removing this power.

War Powers Resolution (comment)

I am not aware of any Constitutionally sanctioned actions by any branch of government that ever granted the executive branch the power to declare war. In fact, Congress alone is delegated that power by the People. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11.) I am not aware that the People delegated to any branch of government the power to modify the intent of the Constitution. Ostensibly, "The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities."

Interestingly, Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 12 states that the power of Congress (as granted by the People) includes the raising and supoort of armies, "but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."

I have heard many arguments about the exigencies of the global situation today, but none of them change the facts of the Constitution. It is trivial to explain that the federal government has run over the states to the detriment of the People. I hold that the people of the USA have lost the admiration of the rest of the world because the USA is considered to be a war monger.

This contribution to the discussion is not solely intended to elucidate specific elements of possible departure in further discourse on the subject, but provide a landline to the People regarding their superior position.

KendallYoung 02:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a section referencing Justice White's dissent in Chadha. I tried to keep it neutral without turning it into a "point-counterpoint" argument by just mentioning what each position was. I personally don't think Justice White is correct in his analysis, so I just stated what he did and did not address in his dissent, and linked to it for others to read. Coranth1 16:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The provisions section is awfully thin and doesn't really describe well what the War Powers Resolution does. It doesn't "give" the President any authority he didn't have under the Constitution. It doesn't "give" him 60 days. It requires that in all possible cases, the president consult with Congress before committing troops and that he report to Congress regularly on military engagements. The 60 days is the window after which, if Congress hasn't authorized the military action, the president must withdraw the troops. Richanne 04:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

I wasn't sure what the writer was trying to do where I made most of the edits, or I would have fixed them as he intended. If someone who knows more than I would take a look at a comparison, it would be helpful. Brian Pearson 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Compliance

The article state that every president until George W. Bush has complied with the War Powers Resolution of 1973. However, presidents have always contended that that War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional and have regularly failed to comply with it. See Harold Koh, The National Security Constitution 39-40 (1990), as cited in Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, Third Edition 286 (2006). Tabitha blair (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Focus

This is all analysis as to history and constitutionality. How about the text? how about what the act itself says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.184.2 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this page to see what the War Powers Resolution says. This article provides almost no useful information about that. It just has a lot of esoteric academic discussions about it's background. Ericwag (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified quote

The passage "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," does not come from the law itself yet the text seems to imoply it does. [1] Does anyone know where this comes from? 184.44.12.42 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's right at the beginning of the law you cited: 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c)(3). Ketone16 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

War Powers Resolution and Non-Self-Defense Warfare

My reading of the War Powers Resolution is that the President may introduce the armed forces into hostilities only in one of three cases (see 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c)): 1) when the Congress has declared war (per the Constitution), 2) when the Congress specifically has authorized it through statute, or 3) in self-defense (i.e., when a national emergency is created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces). In other words, in the case of non-self-defense combat the President needs explicit prior authorization by the Congress (either in the form of a declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization) to engage in a military conflict. Furthermore, the President must terminate hostilities within 60 days (90 days if the extension is certified to the Congress as necessary) unless the Congress explicitly has authorized the conflict (see 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b)). Since two of the three cases in which the President may introduce the armed forces into hostilities involve Congressional authorization, it seems to me that this 60 day (90 day) limit is primarily intended to address the third case, which is a response to an attack on the U.S., its territories and possessions, or its armed forces.

Recently, there has been some discussion about whether President Obama will run afoul of the War Powers Resolution if he does not receive specific Congressional authorization within the 90 day limit. That question seems moot to me, since according to my reading the Libya conflict already was not legal under the War Powers Resolution from day one, since there was no Congressional authorization and it was not a self-defense action (as defined above). This Wikipedia article presently treats the Libya conflict in the same manner: as if the only issue of legality were with the 90-day limit rather than with the use of the armed forces in a non-self-defense situation without prior Congressional authorization. Is this, perhaps, missing the point? Ketone16 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects for the "War Powers Act" to the "War Powers Resolution" is deceptive.

The War Powers Act of November 7th, 1973 is a law passed by congress over the veto of President Nixon. I am changing the heading to correct this error. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/635679/War-Powers-Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usgrant7 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Founding Fathers' View of Standing Army

The previous paragraph concerning the founding fathers' view of a standing army is historically false. A two-tier approach of a small Federal standing army, plus State Militias that could be called up to supplement it during times of war, was clearly envisioned by the writers of the US Constitution. Indeed, an attempt by Elbridge Gerry and Luther Martin to introduce an explicit limit on the size of the Federal army during peacetime into the Constitution -- citing the dangers of a standing army -- was defeated on August 18, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. I have rewritten this paragraph to better reflect history. Contributor tom (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignored By Both Parties?

Before I do any editing, I'm seeking some clarification on the last sentence in the introduction. Specifically this part: "Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties" - The reason for my confusion is this. The two external links cited in this sentence in no way back up this statement that presidents from both parties have done this. I've done some research, and other than President Obama, I've only been able to find one other instance of a president ignoring the War Power Resolution, and that was President Clinton, when he attacked Kosovo.

President Bush had authorization under the War Powers Resolution to attack Afhganistan [2] , and again received it before he ordered the attack on Iraq. [3]

Is there something that I'm missing? Was there another time when a Republican president ignored the War Powers Resolution that I've missed? Because so far I've only been able to find instances of Democratic presidents ignoring the War Powers Resolution. - Seanr451 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Right after this sentence in the intro, "Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties", these two citations are given. [4] and [5] Both of these articles are opinion pieces that are critical of President Bush. Neither of them support the statement that "the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties".

Also, further research on Wikipedia itself shows this: Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists - where the US Congress authorized the attack on Afghanistan and this: Iraq_Resolution - where the US Congress authorized the attack on Iraq.

So unless someone can provide any sort of proof that other presidents have ignored this law, I'll be deleting that sentence from the article. - Seanr451 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've searched for more sources and have only been able to find two times in which presidents ignored the War Powers Resolution. When President Clinton ordered a bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999, and President Obama's current campaign in Libya. This means that the statement that it's been ignored by presidents in both parties is false, as both are members of the Democratic party.

So unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove this sentence and its references: "Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties, some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional."

And replace it with: "The War Powers Resolution was ignored by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he failed to seek congressional approval for the attack on Libya. Some presidents have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. " - Seanr451 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the previous sentence was both incorrect and had sources that did not support what was actually written in the sentence, and since no one has objected, I removed the incorrect sentence and replaced it with one that is both true and sourced. - Seanr451 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just reversed an edit that was done by an unregistered IP address that removed all reference to President Obama ignoring the War Powers Act. I sense an edit war coming with his followers who will do everything they can to force their POV everywhere, including on Wikipedia. Here are some more sources: The Washington Post - The New York Times - The FACT is that congress has disapproved the attack on Libya under the War Powers Resolution. This has been reported by multiple, reliable sources. I'm willing to change the wording of this sentence, if anyone finds it problematic or offensive, but I am unwilling to simply allow the facts to be erased by people who want to push their own POV. - Seanr451 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say President Obama ignored the War Powers Resolution. His administration has put forward a legal justification for why the War Powers Resolution does not apply, but that is different from completely disregarding the Resolution. Whether that justification is valid is a separate question, and whether Congress disapproves the attack is as well; if Congress disapproves but the Resolution doesn't apply (as the administration argues), then Congress's disapproval is irrelevant. I believe the statement should be removed or changed to reflect that the Obama administration has argued that the Resolution does not apply, but that this argument is not universally accepted.Npyati

Ok, maybe ignored isn't the correct word, perhaps you'd prefer 'disregarded'? The fact is that President Obama did not seek approval of the Libyan military action that he ordered as required by the War Powers Resolution. The fact is that Congress has already disapproved the Libyan military action under the War Powers Resolution. And the fact is that President Obama has not discontinued military action in Libya. The Supreme Court of the United States of America may indeed end up deciding that the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the Libyan military action, but until it does make that decision we have to assume that it does. Perhaps you'd like to reword the sentence in a way that reflects that? Seanr451 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I put in a sentence using "disregarded," but changing that he "failed" to request authorization to a statement that he did not seek authorization, and including what the administration argued (didn't have time to find the citation - apologies). I think the administration probably is violating the WPR, but I don't think there's any basis for saying that we have to assume that the Libya strikes violate the WPR. If the executive and legislative branches advance divergent legal interpretations, neither of which is plainly ridiculous, on an issue that has not been substantially addressed by the Supreme Court, the matter is in controversy; there is no presumption one way or the other. If the administration's argument is not convincing, that should definitely be addressed, but I don't think it should be part of the initial description. Npyati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.54.233 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the President must seek approval from Congress when involved in any military action that doesn't fall within certain exceptions. The Libyan military action does not fall into any of those exceptions (response to an attack on the US, declared state of war), and you certainly cannot argue that what we're doing in Libya isn't 'military action', so once again I say that unless and until the Supreme Court rules that the Libya military action isn't in violation of the War Powers Resolution then we have to assume that it is. Seanr451 (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence about President Obama not getting congressional approval was once again removed in a drive-by edit by an unregistered IP address without explanation, so I returned it to the artice. Seanr451 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed two statements from the introduction that were added by another unregistered IP address. The statements contained "weasel words" (charges? WHO made those charges?) and the links given did not support the statements that were made. Seanr451 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted yet another misleading edit by yet another unregistered IP address. It seems that many people simply aren't willing to allow the truth to be stated when it conflicts with their ideology. Seanr451 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Another edit from an IP address: "He went to help support the revolutionary forces, they were not there to engage in combat." The problem with that quote? U.S. fires cruise missiles on Libyan air defenses http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/19/501364/main20045015.shtml So the U.S. fires over a hundred cruise missiles at Libya and that's not engaging in combat? I'm reverting that edit. - Seanr451 (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaspi123 keeps editing the page stating that the War Powers Resolution didn't apply to either Presidents Clinton or Obama. Congress has stated otherwise, so since he provided no proof to back up his claim I reverted his edit. - Seanr451 (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "and again when troops entered Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden" after the mention of the military action in Libya being at odds with the War Powers Resolution, because I believe this to be an inaccurate and politically motivated statement. For one, the strike on Osama bin Laden did not exceed the time limits in the resolution for an action not requiring authorization, and more significantly, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists clearly applies as congressional authorization. Gaidig (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

References

unclear sentence

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt[18] argues "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception".

Have ALL presidents positively declared it unconstitutional?

The intro reads, "All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional." The citations are a 2008 Newsweek article that reads "presidents of both parties have declared it unconstitutional," and a 2011 book by Donald Rumsfeld. I do not have access to the book, but I'm suspicious that the WP article's statement is taking liberties in its interpretations of the source data. If the WP article's statement is correct, we should be able to find better sources. Can someone with access to the Rumsfeld book verify whether or not it provides ample detail to support the WP article's absolute language? MatthewBurton (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That has always been a fascinating opinion, one that flies in the face of both the history of the United States of America and especially Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. For each of those presidents claim some non-extant Constitutional authority to make war and additionally make a non-constitutional argument that Congress lacks the authority to prevent them from making war. A Declaration of war by the United States is not made by any president, it is expressly issued by Congress per Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, regardless of the wishes of some presidents and their staff.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating or not, it needs to be better sourced if the encyclopedia says it is true. If we can't, we should modify the language to something like, "All presidents have violated the terms of the law during their time in office." MatthewBurton (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

War Powers Act of 1973

The War Powers Act of 1973 redirects here, despite the top of this page redirecting information on the War Powers Act of 1973 to it's own separate page.24.15.224.86 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Partisan bias

Sections of this article are neither objective nor historically accurate. The only mention of the 2003 war in Iraq characterizes it as Pres. Bush's response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, with minor detail. Given that the war in Iraq was launched under an objectionable (and challenged) interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the present article's characterization is woefully thin -- to the point of inaccuracy. = ws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springdalehistorian (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-justiciable?

At the moment, this article contains the following assertion with a citation request:

Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.

In seeking a citation, I find that the claim as stated appears to be false, per the linked case article and more specifically the following footnote (#5) in Campbell v. Clinton, 52 F. Supp. 2d 45:

In addition to standing and ripeness, the President also has argued that this case raises a non-justiciable political question. To the extent that the President is arguing that every case brought by a legislator alleging a violation of the War Powers Clause raises a non-justiciable political question, he is wrong. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210-11, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) ("[I]t is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.... [The Court instead must conduct] a discriminating analysis of the particular question posed" in order to determine whether the issue is justiciable); Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d at 614 (in some instances there may be "judicial competence to determine the allocation, between the executive and legislative branches, of the powers to wage war"). Because the Court concludes that plaintiffs lack standing, however, it need not reach the issue of whether this case is one in which the judicial branch has competence to adjudicate such questions.

I will therefore boldly change the sentence to indicate that the court found that the Congressional plaintiffs lack standing, and I note all of this here to preserve a record of my reasoning, to ease rollback if necessary, and to provide a venue for discussion if such is found to be needed. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 00:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeated section

It appears as though the History section is just a word-for-word duplication of the Background section. Is there a need to have both sections? - 75.73.74.171 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on War Powers Resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081215114422/http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm to http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War Powers Resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005100331/http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html to http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016025619/http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html to http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html
• Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20090630211140/http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What about the Gipper and Grenada?

After all... it WAS the FIRST TIME War Powers Resolution was invoked by the Congress.

Congress puts War Powers Resolution to the test for first time
HOUSE VOTES BILL APPLYING WAR LAW TO GRENADA MOVE

What happened?

Collective amnesia?
Editors who were born under Obama administration (second one), then dropped on their collective heads?
Deletionists got drunk one night and decided to alter a bit of history and since they lacked books do some good old book burning...--31.176.204.168 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)