LYCOS RETRIEVER 
War Powers Resolution: United States
built 198 days ago
The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it became law, because it did not settle the question of the Constitutional division of powers between branches of U.S. government with regard to the declaration and the conduct of war. See Separation of powers under the United States Constitution for more on this topic.
Source:
Congress itself interpreted the Constitution in precisely this fashion when it passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, codified at 50 U.S.C. Section 1541 et seq. only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. . . ." This provision serves as a statutory definition of the constitutional war powers5.
Source:
Polities in transition have looked to diverse constitutional models in developing their own approaches to executive-legislative relations with respect to war powers. The newest NATO members and NATO aspirants had their first tests of constitutional control of war powers in the post-cold war era with the Kosovo crisis. Hungary, a front-line state for this conflict, which borders on Yugoslavia and has close ties to ethnic Hungarians in the Vojvodina region of Serbia, submitted certain critical decisions for the affirmative authorization of the national parliament.7 Bulgaria and Romania, not yet NATO members but [*pg 127] eager to prove themselves to be suitable partners, had parliamentary votes to approve opening their airspace to NATO planes.8
Source:
The issue of war powers and whether congressional authorization is necessary for U.S. participation in U.N. action (see above discussion) has ... been raised by efforts to halt fighting in the former territory of Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia. The United States has participated without congressional authorization in airlifts into Sarajevo, naval monitoring of sanctions, aerial enforcement of a "no-fly zone," and aerial enforcement of safe havens.
Source:
This paper is about the War Powers Resolution. But since that statute was clearly premised upon the proposition that it was a mistake for the United States to become involved in that conflict, a brief comment may be in order about the underlying commitment.
Source:
An interesting argument arises out of the use in the War Powers Act of the phrase "United States Armed Forces." That specifically does not include, e.g., CIA covert military operations. Nasty. This was one of the big problems with Oliver North and friends.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
United States