Fabius Maximus ("A discussion of geopolitics – broadly defined as economics, government, sociology and the military arts – from an American’s perspective.") puts our intervention in Libya and the War Powers Act into mutual perspective.
Money quote(s):
"Summary: The Libyan War will have long-term consequences, no matter who eventually rules Libya. It’s another precedent. Another step away from the Second Republic (1788-) towards a new political regime. One with a far stronger Executive than the Founders wanted. One as strong as they feared."
This is not an uncommon viewpoint on the right side of the political spectrum.
"The Libyan War does not meet the requirements for Presidential authorization of military action. The relevant clauses are both brief and clear."
"US Code Title 50, Chapter 33: The War Powers Resolution, § 1541. Purpose and policy Section C: Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
1. a declaration of war,
2. specific statutory authorization, or
3. a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
No president, since the War Powers Act was first passed, has conceded that it actually binds them, but all have been punctilious about not violating it and complying with it, even if only as a courtesy.
"A cure will come only when we as a people decide to return to a Constitutional form of government. That would mean no public support for these discretionary wars, and the senior military leadership coming to a different understanding of how to balance their duties to obey the Commander-in-Chief and defend the Constitution.
The latter is an important and seldom mentioned point. I fear we’re slowly moving to a time where the two duties of our most senior officers will conflict, radically and unmistakably. Perhaps not in our time, but likely in our children’s time"
Accepting congressional resolutions authorizing the use of force, as was done for Afghanistan and Iraq, as constituting declarations of war is reasonable enough; it's not like the Constitution established any sort of format for this kind of document. It's up to Congress to make that sort of rule for itself, or not. It's once you start subcontracting that element of sovereignty outwith the federal system, to UN or NATO or other organs, that Constitutionalists get.... twitchy.
"The primary precedent expanding Presidential war powers; “The Korean War: On What Legal Basis Did Truman Act?“, Louis Fisher (Congressional Research Service), American Journal of International Law, January 1995 – American history might have taken a different course if our senior generals had gently requested that Truman first get Presidential approval. If they had only taken their oath more seriously."
_____
Hat tip to Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations").
