LYCOS RETRIEVER 
War Powers Resolution: Democratic Congress
built 234 days ago
The War Powers Resolution errs in attempting to create a comprehensive list of potential national security contingencies. The Founders intentionally left out anymch list from the Constitution because they understood the impossibility of such a task Section 3: Consultation In practice, the requirement that the President consult? with .Congress before dispatching armed forces politically has been the most explosive provision. Political confrontation over this section in- recent years involved the raid on Libya, and sending Marines to Beirutand convoys to protect ships in the Persian Gulf r Section 3 specifies that in every possible iiistance the Presihent shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces-into hostilities or into situations where imminent hvolvement in hostilities is 1 clearly indicated by the circumstances. In addition, the President must Jr consult regularly with Congress once armed forces are introduced until the forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have. been removed from such situations Need for Secrecy.
Source:
For all the controversy it has spurred, key elements of the War Powers Resolution are constitutionally compelling and warrant broad support. First, its overriding purpose is to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President†applies to the introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities and to the continued use of those forces. Second, it seeks to enable Congress to better fulfill its constitutional responsibilities by requiring the President “in every possible instance†to “consult with Congress before introducing†U.S. armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities and to continue to “consult regularly†with the Congress while U.S. forces are in those situations. Moreover, the legislative history of the War Powers Resolution makes clear that Congress expected consultations to be meaningful:
Source:
Section 5 of the War Powers Resolution contains two of its most controversial features. Section 5(b) provides that if Congress does not authorize the President to continue a section 4(a)(1) deployment (sending forces "into hostilities or into a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances") within 62 days (the 60-day clock begins running when a report is submitted or when it should have been submitted, that is, within 48 hours after the deployment), the President must withdraw the forces. He may... keep them there for another 30 days if necessary for their own safety. This is sometimes referred to as the "silent veto," and it allows Congress to terminate an operation without having to take a formal stance on its merits. Others have noted that if the United States gets into a quarrel with bad actors abroad, which the President and either the House or Senate think is in the national interest but about which the other branch of Congress is unable to make up its mind, the law awards the victory to our enemy. Few modern supporters of the resolution defend this provision.
Source:
After World War II, Congress watched its institutional powers decline. President Harry Truman's military initiatives in Korea in 1950 and the escalation of the Vietnam War by President Lyndon B. Johnson beginning in 1965 both contributed to this reduced role for Congress. In an effort to restore its prerogatives and limit presidential wars, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 (P.L. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555). However, in many instances the statute contradicts itself, reflecting major differences between the House and the Senate.
Source:
The intent of the War Powers Resolution was to restore and to ensure collective judgment in using force in foreign settings. The intentions of the drafters of the resolution were sincere--the law was as much a decisional framework for Congress as it was for the President. It did not take long... for presidential action and assertiveness to take place--with the acquiescence and consent of the Congress. Missing from this strategy is a Congress fulfilling its constitutional mandate during the time a military action is taking place. This is not an excuse for Congress to intrude on the President's power as Commander in Chief, an enumerated power of the President and an area that is off limits to the reach of Congress.[10] It is, however, a matter of Congress fulfilling its constitutional responsibility, and doing so at the proper time.
Source:
Referring to Clinton's disregard for the War Powers Resolution, Paul added, "Once again, President Clinton is demonstrating his utter disregard for the Constitution and laws of this nation. He apparently views himself as a king, rather than the president of a constitutional republic; he must believe that his will is the law, rather than the Constitution and acts of Congress. To say this president is anything but dangerous and reckless would be a gross understatement."
Source:
MORE ABOUT
Democratic Congress