One more point is that this act, it can be argued, was intended to provide for a check and balance on the Executive branch.
The decision for extended armed intervention is to be a co-decision between Executive and Congressional branches of our gov't.
Quite simply, they are not Constitutionally required to make the Declaration of War, not yet. Nor would they want to at this time. Here in another 40 days or so they will be required to.
_________________________
Sure could use a trim
The decision for extended armed intervention is to be a co-decision between Executive and Congressional branches of our gov't.
Quite simply, they are not Constitutionally required to make the Declaration of War, not yet. Nor would they want to at this time. Here in another 40 days or so they will be required to.
_________________________
Sure could use a trim
The War Powers Act was not a Cosnt amendment and thus cann't alter, reduce, amend or change Const requirements. To the extent it does, and I believe that it does, then it is unconstituional and we need a court that has some balls to say so. The framers were very clear on the importance of giving Congress, and not one man, the power to take the most seriosu of actions, wagcing war. I'm not going to go into the specific arguments here but they are winners if a court actually listens to them and has some balls. Where are the 'conservatives' on this one?
