PDA

View Full Version : The War Powers Resolution of 1973



pefjr
09-02-2013, 07:46 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution Interesting how this Act has been used and abused over 40 ys. Also of interest is the point made by Phillip Bobbitt, he argues that "A democracy cannot ... tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)) of governmental action.

Introduced in the House as H.J.Res. 542 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.93hjres542) by Clement J. Zablocki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_J._Zablocki) (D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))-WI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin)) on May 3, 1973
Committee consideration by: House Foreign Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs)
Passed the House on July 18, 1973 (244170)
Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 (75-20)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (7520) and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238123)
Vetoed by President Richard Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) on October 24, 1973
Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284135)
Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (7518

Peerie Maa
09-02-2013, 08:11 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution Interesting how this Act has been used and abused over 40 ys. Also of interest is the point made by Phillip Bobbitt, he argues that "A democracy cannot ... tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)) of governmental action.

Introduced in the House as H.J.Res. 542 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.93hjres542) by Clement J. Zablocki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_J._Zablocki) (D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))-WI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin)) on May 3, 1973
Committee consideration by: House Foreign Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs)
Passed the House on July 18, 1973 (244–170)
Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 (75-20)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20) and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–123)
Vetoed by President Richard Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) on October 24, 1973
Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)
Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (75–18

There will (as yet) be no boots on the ground, so is this resolution relevant?
POTUS is still in compliance:

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

pefjr
09-02-2013, 08:34 AM
All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#cite_note-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#cite_note-5)Drunk with Power?

John Smith
09-02-2013, 08:40 AM
I posted this in on of the other threads.

I remember some of the arguments. One, anyway. Things happen faster than they used to, and time is often not a luxury available.

Gerarddm
09-02-2013, 10:24 AM
The president has not contravened the War Powers Act. If he committed forces and then failed to notify Congress within the 48 hours, he would have. Until SCOTUS overturns the Act, there it is.

Nicholas Carey
09-02-2013, 12:29 PM
The War Powers Act doesn't go far enough. While the Constitution was being ratified, the very notion of a standing military was highly contentious, due to fears that such would encourage presidents to engage in foreign adventurism and empire-building (as we know know, a fear well-grounded in reality). To allay these fears, war powers were split between the executive and legislative branches, giving to the Congress the power to create a war (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8) (The Congress shall have power...To declare war...make rules concerning captures on land and water...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;), and [/url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2"]to the executive the power (and responsibility) of prosecuting it.[/url] (The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;).

This is further required by our signing, and the Senate's subsequent ratification of, The Hague Conventions of 1907, still in force, though they've been extended by later Hague and Geneva conventions. The Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities aka Hague III, Article I says:



Article 1. The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
[/i]

The only entity in the United States Government that can do that, by law, is the Congress of the United States.