LYCOS RETRIEVER 
War Powers Resolution: President Carter
built 277 days ago
A War Powers Resolution is no more necessary than a balanced budget amendment, and has proven at least as problematic. If you want a balanced budget, then submit one. And if you want to restrain the president’s power abroad, then do so – use the power of the purse to cut off funding for foreign-policy adventurism. Mere resolutions are no match for a determined executive, who can simply define "war," "consultation," and other critical terms to suit his agenda. The War Powers Resolution, in short, is just one in a long line of political gimmicks designed to give the impression that things have changed, when in fact business has never been more usual.
Source:
The War Powers Resolution (WPR) has led a beleaguered existence. Since its enactment in 1973, it has been labeled ineffectual and useless. This Note proves... that to review presidential unilateral uses of force since 1973 is to find a spirit of compliance with the WPR, as these uses of force have been characterized by their brevity and their lack of spilled U.S. blood. While minor departures from the WPR's black-letter requirements are conceded, none of these uses of force have developed into, or even resembled, Vietnam-esque quagmires.
Source:
Military initiatives from presidents in the years following the War Powers Resolution reveal a glaring deficiency in the statute. The resolution is written in such a way that the sixty- to ninety-day clock begins ticking only if the president reports under a very specific section: not section 4, not section 4(a), but only section 4(a)(1). Not surprisingly, presidents do not report under 4(a)(1). They report, for the most part, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution." The only president to report under 4(a)(1) was Gerald Ford in the capture of the Mayaguez ship in Cambodia. But even in that case, his report had no substantive importance because it was issued only after the military operation had been completed.
Source:
Since its adoption, the War Powers Resolution has come under criticism. Several Presidents have voiced the view that the Resolution is invalid insofar as it purports to limit a power given to the Commander in Chief by the Constitution.
Source:
Ford's criticisms of the War Powers Resolution, on constitutional and policy grounds, were most forcefully articulated in a speech delivered a few months after he left the presidency. See REVELEY, supra note 15, at 254-56 (excerpting Ford's April 1977 speech). Referring to the practice of his presidency with respect to the War Powers Resolution, Ford stated that he had not believed that the War Powers Resolution was legally applicable in the instances that arose in his tenure. He stated, "Furthermore, I did not concede that the resolution itself was legally binding on the President on constitutional grounds." Id. at 254.
Source:
These events illustrate the statutory ambiguity found in the War Powers Resolution. US military forces were not deliberately or intentionally introduced into hostilities by order of the President until the 21 September attack upon the Iran Ajr, five months after Kuwait agreed to accept US protection in the Gulf. It can be argued that US forces were involved in hostilities when the U.S.S. Stark was attacked on 17 May. Yet, even if the attack on the Stark qualified as a hostile act, it did not activate the War Powers Resolution mechanisms because the President had not intentionally introduced the Stark into hostilities. And, following the single incident, further hostilities were neither "imminent" nor "clearly indicated." There was no further order from the President to place more naval vessels in direct confrontation with potentially hostile forces.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
President Carter