|
errantgeek -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/24/2011 11:01:32 AM)
|
Going back a few pages...
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
It is interesting to say the least, the war powers act is a poorly written punitive encroachment on presidential power.
Actually, I disagree with the traditional interpretation of the War Powers Act. I think it's an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. The thing to keep in mind is, the Constitution hinges the activation of Commander-in-Chief power and duty to being "called into the actual Service of the United States", which I would interpret as one of two conditions: a state of national emergency (characterized by, taking a clue from the Suspension Clause, invasion or rebellion), and a declaration of war by Congress. Presidents were very quick to note the vagueness of the clause and interpret it to mean not only protection of U.S. assets and allies abroad from emergent situations (and later, threat) as well and use the vagueness to wage undeclared (yet, Congressionally authorized) war; the Franco-American War (better known as the Quasi-War) was the first of many.
What the War Powers Act does first and foremost is legitimize that interpretation, which was a very broad reading of the Commander-in-Chief clause from the beginning, after nearly 200 years of precedent. The only reason it was remotely an issue in '73 was due to a Congressional FUBAR (seriously, a blank check to "defend SEATO" after an incident that was even at the time regarded as extremely shady? Way to go, Congress.) and strong desire to save face among the American populace.
But that's just my personal opinion of it.
|
|
|
|
