# Is the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625 "2011-07-02T14:48:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/21 "2011-07-05T17:26:24Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > If I understand your argument correctly, you are stating that the gloss covers the Libyan action because of prior Congressional action, which has given the President an implied authority to commit. But, from my point of view, it’s within Congress’s power to revoke that power (which is how I read Youngstown), which they did in the WPR. > > AFAIK, and I’m willing to be corrected on this, Congress has given at least a fig-leaf of retroactive authorization for offensive deployments by the executive since passage of the WPR. I cannot find an instance where Congress completely ignored an offensive deployment by the Executive (except in the case of prior treaty obligations). Again, I’m willing to be corrected, and if it is the case that the Executive has deployed in an offensive capacity since passage of the WPR without any retroactive fig-leaf authorization, I’m more amenable to the point of view that the Libyan deployment falls under the gloss in question. > > … I wanted to add more. I think I understand your argument better and didn’t address it in my previous post. First, let me make sure I’m restating it right. You’re saying, the WPR breaks the “systematic, unbroken executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and never before questioned” by limiting the Constitutional authority of the President to commit troops to the three circumstances listed. It explicitly states when the President can commit troops to hostilities. Committing troops because it’s in our national interest is not one of those three listed. And you’re also stating, even though Presidents do not usually get Congressional approval before they commit troops, Congress still authorizes their actions (assuming they do) when they retroactively authorize it. Kind of like putting a ^ in the beginning of a previously written sentence and inserting Congressional authorization. So in effect, Congress is _always_ (pre) authorizing the commitment of troops and authorization is one of the three Constitutional ways in which a President can commit troops. So gloss can’t be gleamed in those situations because the power to commit the troops came from Congressional authorization (albeit retroactively), not from the President. At this point I’d need to rethink the WPR as written and whether it effectively breaks long systematic, ect. Presidential actions and my head can’t do it alone. It’s definitely interesting. However, sec 1547(d)(1) admits the WPR does not change existing Presidential Constitutional powers (even though they are not one of the three listed). And retroactive authorization seems like an imperfect patch to the problem. The WPR definitely invites the President to act unilaterally, and they try and hide/fix this by using retroactive authorization. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/22 "2011-07-05T17:38:08Z")
Do our treaty obligations figure in any of this? Treaties have the full force of federal law. Can the president say he is fulfilling out treaty obligations and the WPR is not at issue? ---
**Author:** ![AntiCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a587f6/32.png) [@AntiCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AntiCoyote)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/23 "2011-07-05T21:19:43Z")
But presidents by giving their tacit approval by following it, are setting up precedent. The same way if you allow someone to walk across your property you can tacitly create a legal easement. In reality it won’t be challenged as there is no way to do it. If you took this to the Supreme Court more than likely they would simply decline to hear the case, saying it was political in nature. Then you’re back to square one. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/24 "2011-07-05T21:53:46Z")
And what is the constitutional definition of war? Any action with troops? Any action beyond the 2 year financing of the army? An action of over 120 days? And does the President as CinC have ultimate authority in military actions if it is not a war? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/25 "2011-07-06T02:43:49Z")
Some updates to my previous posts: Grenada: Both houses voted to invoke the WPR, but no final legislation was passed. Troops were out within 60 days. Panama: I was somewhat incorrect here. Congress passed legislation expressing the sense that Noriega should be removed, but there was no explicit authorization for the use of military force. Troops were out within 60 days. Somalia: The FY 1994 Defense Authorization Act cut off funding for further operations in Somalia after 3/31/94 without further Congressional action. It’s a fig leaf, but I would consider this to be retroactive authorization. Liberia: All except one that I’ve found deal with evacuation of citizens or protection of the Embassy or American government property, which I would consider to be defensive actions. There is a deployment on 6/9/03 (Bush II) to provide logistical support to African peace-keeping forces. I’ll have to investigate that one further. I’m not sure what to think about the in-and-out in under 60 days events. I’ll have to ponder. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/26 "2011-07-06T02:49:55Z")
Here’s what could be an informative CRS report, which I’ve only had time to glance at: > **[The%20War%20Powers%20Resolution\_2004.pdf](https://www.ruleoflawus.info/Separation%20of%20Powers%20-%20or%20lack%20of/The%20War%20Powers%20Resolution_2004.pdf)** > > 507.95 KB ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/27 "2011-07-06T02:51:19Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > I wanted to add more. I think I understand your argument better and didn’t address it in my previous post. First, let me make sure I’m restating it right. > > You’re saying, the WPR breaks the “systematic, unbroken executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and never before questioned” by limiting the Constitutional authority of the President to commit troops to the three circumstances listed. It explicitly states when the President can commit troops to hostilities. Committing troops because it’s in our national interest is not one of those three listed. > > And you’re also stating, even though Presidents do not usually get Congressional approval before they commit troops, Congress still authorizes their actions (assuming they do) when they retroactively authorize it. Kind of like putting a ^ in the beginning of a previously written sentence and inserting Congressional authorization. So in effect, Congress is _always_ (pre) authorizing the commitment of troops and authorization is one of the three Constitutional ways in which a President can commit troops. So gloss can’t be gleamed in those situations because the power to commit the troops came from Congressional authorization (albeit retroactively), not from the President. Yeah, this is basically my argument. Although I’m going to have to think about it some more as well. EDIT: On the Obama memo, the vast majority of the cites are from other Attorney General opinions or Executive Letters. I don’t consider these to be that useful when determining what the law actually is in these kind of cases. I’ll have to find time to read the cited memos and letters to see if we’ve got a bit of circular reasoning going on there (ie, we have this power because we previously stated we have this power). There are a few court cites, which I’ll check out when I get a moment. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/28 "2011-07-06T02:52:05Z")
> [@AntiCoyote](#): > > But presidents by giving their tacit approval by following it, are setting up precedent. The same way if you allow someone to walk across your property you can tacitly create a legal easement. > > In reality it won’t be challenged as there is no way to do it. If you took this to the Supreme Court more than likely they would simply decline to hear the case, saying it was political in nature. > > Then you’re back to square one. As was noted in post #4 (and yes it really happens this way with every president and yes seems like so much semantic bullshit but it is a distinction they make so as to not set up the precedent you are talking about): > [@Ravenman](#): > > No Administration has submitted to the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. Minor illustration: the WPR requires notification of Congress each time troops are put in harm’s way. Every notification letter sent to Congress has been submitted “consistent” with the War Powers Resolution – not “in accordance with” the WPR, not “as required by” the WPR – just consistent. As in, the President doesn’t actually have to recognize the legality of the WPR, but may choose to act in a way that is not inconsistent with it. In short, they comply with the WPR because they are being nice about it, not because they feel they have to. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/29 "2011-07-06T03:55:58Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Yeah, this is basically my argument. Although I’m going to have to think about it some more as well. Ok. We’re on the same page. I still stand by my previous post, though (#19). Further, it leaves an odd situation where the President can commit troops w/o Congressional authorization for less than 60 days and not be in violation of the WPR, but still acting unconstitutionally (assuming he didn’t commit troops in defense of the US). Because then it’s not one of the three listed ways the President can constitutionally commit troops. That seems like an odd result. For instance, Libya, assuming “no hostilities” was the sanest argument ever and thus Obama was only there for two weeks, would still leave Obama acting unconstitutionally because Congress never authorized those two weeks. I don’t believe retroactive authorization can have the effect you claim; and if it doesn’t, then the argument falls apart because the President would be using some other, non-WPR, constutional power to unilaterally commit the troops. And Congress would be continually approving this every time they later authorize it. For now though, I don’t have anything other than a gut feeling about this. I can now see why Congress wants it to work that way and frankly I’m amazed at how the WPR operates and it’s attempts to address Presidential power so completely; it really tries to cover all the Youngstown bases and it never ceases to amaze me. Anyways, here’s Obama’s reasoning regarding the WPR “trying” to limit Presidential power to only three situations and why it fails: From: Authority to Use Military Force in Libya > [@](#): > > A policy statement in the WPR states that “[t]he 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.” 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c).\*\* But this policy statement “is \*\ ***not to be viewed as limiting presidential action in any substantive manner**.” Presidential Power, 4A Op. O.L.C. at 190. The conference committee report accompanying the WPR made clear that “[s]ubsequent sections of the [Resolution] are not dependent upon the language of” the policy statement. H.R. Rep. No. 93-547, at 8 (1973). Moreover, in a later, operative provision, the Resolution makes clear that nothing in it “is intended to alter the constitutional authority . . . of the President.” 50 U.S.C. § 1547(d). **As demonstrated by U.S. military interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, among many other examples, “the President’s power to deploy armed forces into situations of actual or indicated hostilities is not restricted to the three categories specifically marked out by the Resolution.”** Proposed Bosnia Deployment, 19 Op. O.LC. at 335; see also Haiti Deployment, 18 Op. O.L.C. at 176 & n.3. (emphasis added) > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > EDIT: \*\*On the Obama memo, the vast majority of the cites are from other Attorney General opinions or Executive Letters. I don’t consider these to be that useful when determining what the law actually is in these kind of cases. \*\* I’ll have to find time to read the cited memos and letters to see if we’ve got a bit of circular reasoning going on there (ie, we have this power because we previously stated we have this power). There are a few court cites, which I’ll check out when I get a moment. (I bolded) But that’s exactly how Presidential gloss is formed, through circular reasoning. The President openly using power that’s not explicitly denied by Congress, again, and again. So openly doing, citing and doing again, citing those two and doing again, citing those three and doing again, ect.; all with approval or lack of objection by Congress, can at some point add gloss to his power. This memo is just another in a long line of memo’s claiming this power. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/30 "2011-07-06T05:06:52Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Some updates to my previous posts: > Somalia: The FY 1994 Defense Authorization Act cut off funding for further operations in Somalia after 3/31/94 without further Congressional action. It’s a fig leaf, but I would consider this to be retroactive authorization. An authorization under the WPR has to make specific reference to the WPR. That’s what the WPR says. Since a cutoff of funds does not authorize anything under the WPR, it isn’t a retroactive authorization. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/31 "2011-07-07T03:27:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > An authorization under the WPR has to make specific reference to the WPR. That’s what the WPR says. Since a cutoff of funds does not authorize anything under the WPR, it isn’t a retroactive authorization. This touches on an issue which **CoolHandCox** raised in a previous post, which is whether a previous Congress can bind future Congress’s in this manner. IMO, the answer is no. Since the ability to declare war and regulate the forces is a Congressional power conferred by the Constitution, each Congress has the ability to set its own standards for authorizing the deployment of military force each time it decides to do so. **Ravenman** , I’m having trouble finding where the WPR states that the form of statutory authorization requires an explicit reference to the WPR. Can you cite me where it occurs? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/32 "2011-07-07T04:30:59Z")
Section 8(a)(1). ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/33 "2011-07-07T04:36:35Z")
Ah, ok. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/34 "2011-07-07T16:37:13Z")
As to the OP’s question of whether the WPR is constitutional, I’d point out that some parts are not, and some parts very likely are. As far as Libya is concerned, the 60 day clock requiring the removal of troops is not unconstitutional according to the Executive. Per a 1980 OLC memo, they said that Congressional limitation on the use of armed forces was constitutional (and prior SC cases suggests this is true). No President since 1980’s has disputed it, including Obama with Libya (Nixon initially stated it was unconstitutional - the Executive office reversed that stance in 1980). Here’s the [1980 OLC Memo](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/cases/4aOpOffLegalCounsel185.pdf) (PDF!). Here’s the relevant language: > [@](#): > > We believe that Congress may, as a general constitutional matter, place a 60-day limit on the use of our armed forces as required by the provisions of § 1544(b) of the Resolution…We cannot say that placing that burden on the President unconstitutionally intrudes upon his executive powers. This might explain why the President insists there are no longer hostilities to trigger the WPR (and that pesky 60 day clock). The WPR itself says if one part is invalid, it shouldn’t effect the other parts. That’s probably accurate. So here, if there are in fact hostilities, then Obama has clearly violated the 60 day clock, because he does not dispute the constitutionality of that particular 60-day clock limitation, even if other sections are unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/35 "2011-07-08T05:06:00Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Ok. We’re on the same page. I still stand by my previous post, though (#19). Further, it leaves an odd situation where the President can commit troops w/o Congressional authorization for less than 60 days and not be in violation of the WPR, but still acting unconstitutionally (assuming he didn’t commit troops in defense of the US). Because then it’s not one of the three listed ways the President can constitutionally commit troops. That seems like an odd result. For instance, Libya, assuming “no hostilities” was the sanest argument ever and thus Obama was only there for two weeks, would still leave Obama acting unconstitutionally because Congress never authorized those two weeks. But why is that an odd result? The WPR could be rewritten to authorize any action of less than 60 days, which would remove the unconstitutionality of an under-60 action. Since it isn’t written that way, then the President would be acting unconstitutionally (unless he has some other Constitutional power to deploy for under-60 days). > [@](#): > > I don’t believe retroactive authorization can have the effect you claim; Can you explain why? Congress (much to my dismay) uses retroactive authorization all over the place (e.g., Bush II wiretapping). … > [@](#): > > Anyways, here’s Obama’s reasoning regarding the WPR “trying” to limit Presidential power to only three situations and why it fails: So, the problem I’m having with the quoted section is that all the actions mentioned have fig-leaf retroactive authorizations (in my view… **Ravenman** probably wouldn’t agree that those were retroactive authorizations). It’s extremely time-consuming to track down every piece of legislation associated with a particular military action, so I’m thinking that there are probably a few actions out there without any sort of authorization, but I’m relying on secondary/internet sources to figure exactly what Congress did or didn’t do. If it were the case that there were multiple under-60 actions that happened after the WPR was passed, then I’d have to concede that gloss has attached to at least that. > [@](#): > > But that’s exactly how Presidential gloss is formed, through circular reasoning. The President openly using power that’s not explicitly denied by Congress, again, and again. So openly doing, citing and doing again, citing those two and doing again, citing those three and doing again, ect.; all with approval or lack of objection by Congress, can at some point add gloss to his power. This memo is just another in a long line of memo’s claiming this power. Sure. But from my point of view, the WPR breaks the chain of gloss. So, I want to see exactly what they are citing back to. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/36 "2011-07-12T00:31:30Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Can you explain why [retroactive authorization doesn’t have the effect I claim]? Congress (much to my dismay) uses retroactive authorization all over the place (e.g., Bush II wiretapping). I cannot. I can’t find anything really online about retroactive authorization in general. There might be an answer in _The Prize Cases_, somewhere, but I’m mentally not in the mood. To be sure, I know Congress uses retroactive authorization, and I know it works; we’re just disagreeing over its effect in regards to the WPR/gloss. Do you have anything that shows it does work the way you claim (maybe the actual authorization language for one of the WPR authorizations)? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just being lazy. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/37 "2011-07-12T01:57:25Z")
[Here](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf) is an exhaustive list of authorizations for the use of force and declarations of war. There seems to be one which is retroactive, and really, it isn’t a very enthusiastic blessing. The Lebanon resolution clearly puts limits on the deployment of US forces, even though forces had already been deployed when the resolution was passed. The resolution really was more about establishing conditions for the removal of troops, rather than keeping them there indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/38 "2011-07-12T23:48:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > [Here](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf) is an exhaustive list of authorizations for the use of force and declarations of war. > > There seems to be one which is retroactive, and really, it isn’t a very enthusiastic blessing. The Lebanon resolution clearly puts limits on the deployment of US forces, even though forces had already been deployed when the resolution was passed. The resolution really was more about establishing conditions for the removal of troops, rather than keeping them there indefinitely. That’s a great list! Exactly what I was looking for. Re: 1983 Lebanon, I’m betting that falls under the Presidents constitutional powers to respond to an attack; so in my mind, WPR retroactive authorization wouldn’t be needed. Also, and I just glanced, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of authorizations in general compared to the amount of times troops have been sent into hostilities by the President. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/39 "2011-07-13T02:07:38Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Re: 1983 Lebanon, I’m betting that falls under the Presidents constitutional powers to respond to an attack; so in my mind, WPR retroactive authorization wouldn’t be needed. I assume you’re responding to the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks. That happened about two weeks after the use of force resolution was passed, and that use of force resolution was passed after the Marines were already sent to Lebanon. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625/40 "2011-07-18T04:50:15Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Do you have anything that shows it does work the way you claim (maybe the actual authorization language for one of the WPR authorizations)? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just being lazy. Let’s look at the [1994 Defense Authorization Act:](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c1038Pj8RN:e945405:) > [@](#): > > SEC. 1512. INVOLVEMENT OF ARMED FORCES IN SOMALIA. > > (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD SOMALIA- > > (1) Since United States Armed Forces made significant contributions under Operation Restore Hope towards the establishment of a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations and restoration of peace in the region to end the humanitarian disaster that had claimed more than 300,000 lives. > > (2) Since the mission of United States forces in support of the United Nations appears to be evolving from the establishment of `a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations,’ as set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 794 of December 3, 1992, to one of internal security and nation building. > > (b) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY- > > (1) CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESS- The President should consult closely with the Congress regarding United States policy with respect to Somalia, including in particular the deployment of United States Armed Forces in that country, whether under United Nations or United States command. > > (2) PLANNING- The United States shall facilitate the assumption of the functions of United States forces by the United Nations. > > (3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT- > > (A) The President shall ensure that the goals and objectives supporting deployment of United States forces to Somalia and a description of the mission, command arrangements, size, functions, location, and anticipated duration in Somalia of those forces are clearly articulated and provided in a detailed report to the Congress by October 15, 1993. > > (B) Such report shall include the status of planning to transfer the function contained in paragraph (2). > > (4) CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL- Upon reporting under the requirements of paragraph (3) Congress believes the President should by November 15, 1993, seek and receive congressional authorization in order for the deployment of United States forces to Somalia to continue. Now, it’s true that this doesn’t include a specific WPR authorization, but this language lays out another form of authorization for the continuation of forces in Somalia. I suppose it doesn’t explicitly state that the deployment up until that point is okay, but it remarks on the US forces “significant contributions,” so it’s not a statement of disapproval. This is what I mean by fig-leaf authorization. It’s not the way I would like things to be run, but the bill acknowledges the deployment and puts new restrictions and reporting requirements on the deployment, and in my view that amounts to a retroactive authorization. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-powers-resolution-unconstitutional/587625.md?page=3)