Talk:War Powers Resolution

message: We're citing op-eds now as an academic basis for bold claims?  Sure, Washington Post Op-Ed was written by James Baker and Warren Christopher, both of which have impeccable credentials.  But it's still an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed work.  Honestly, we could and should do better.  Per the Reliable_sources guidelines "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text."
# ^ Baker III, James A.; Warren Christopher (July 8, 2008). "Put War Powers Back Where They Belong". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08baker.html. Retrieved 2008-07-09.  "We believe our proposal is good for the presidency because it would eliminate a law that every president since Richard Nixon has treated as unconstitutional..."
Dougbateman (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Op-Ed Academic Sources??

message: Why are significant sections of this article identical in wording to War Powers Resolution at AllExperts?
Unseelie 06:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AllExperts?

message: This afternoon I tried to improve a confusing run-on sentence by switching phrases around (see the history page). I'm still not satisfied... I don't know enough about this. Have listed on Pages needing attention. - dcljr 05:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Run-on sentence

message: Why were several sections removed on Sept. 1 by an unregistered user?  I think the (now removed) "Provisions" section, in particular, is critical to the article.  (objectivity note: I did not contribute any of the removed material.)  Thorne 11:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably vandalism. Reverted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.219.255.117 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-03T20:43:09.
Sections where removed again by someone 4/26/09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostAxiom (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections removed?

message: This article needs some rework. It mentions little about the historical context in which the resolution was passed, it mentions nothing of the controvery about INS v. Chadha and it devotes the bulk of the article to questions about its constitutionality with little mention of the weak points of these arguments. As an example, it presents US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 as if it has implied priority over Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 (war declaration power of Congress, which Bobbitt non-chalantly belittles as a "contemporary textual preconception" reserved only for total wars). - ionel 20 February 2006
The section on constitutionality is not very clear.  It gives sources of people who complain about the constitutionality and some counterpoints, but no illuminating points as to what the issue is with the law's constitutionality, the arguments back and forth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.65.99 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework

message: I moved the NPOV tag, because there is no longer any commentary about the current US Iraq conflict, other than reference to the AUMF and the fact it cited the War Powers Act, which is factual. I added the INS v. Chadha summary, as discussed in detail below. The only remaining NPOV section are the various questions about constitutionality -- and I renamed that section for that reason. Coragryph 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I am not aware of any Constitutionally sanctioned actions by any branch of government that ever granted the executive branch the power to declare war.  In fact, Congress alone is delegated that power by the People.  (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11.)  I am not aware that the People delegated to any branch of government the power to modify the intent of the Constitution.  Ostensibly, "The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities."
Interestingly, Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 12 states that the power of Congress (as granted by the People) includes the raising and supoort of armies, "but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."
I have heard many arguments about the exigencies of the global situation today, but none of them change the facts of the Constitution.  It is trivial to explain that the federal government has run over the states to the detriment of the People.  I hold that the people of the USA have lost the admiration of the rest of the world because the USA is considered to be a war monger.
This contribution to the discussion is not solely intended to elucidate specific elements of possible departure in further discourse on the subject, but provide a landline to the People regarding their superior position.
KendallYoung 02:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War Powers Resolution (comment)

message: I wasn't sure what the writer was trying to do where I  made most of the edits, or I would have fixed them as he intended. If someone who knows more than I would take a look at a comparison, it would be helpful. Brian Pearson 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: The article state that every president until George W. Bush has complied with the War Powers Resolution of 1973. 
However, presidents have always contended that that War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional and have regularly failed to comply with it. See Harold Koh, The National Security Constitution 39-40 (1990), as cited in Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, Third Edition 286 (2006).
Tabitha blair (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential Compliance

message: This is all analysis as to history and constitutionality.  How about the text?  how about what the act itself says?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.184.2 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Focus

message: The passage "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," does not come from the law itself yet the text seems to imoply it does.   Does anyone know where this comes from?  184.44.12.42 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's right at the beginning of the law you cited:  50 U.S.C. § 1541(c)(3). Ketone16 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unidentified quote

message: My reading of the War Powers Resolution is that the President may introduce the armed forces into hostilities only in one of three cases (see 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c)):  1) when the Congress has declared war (per the Constitution), 2) when the Congress specifically has authorized it through statute, or 3) in self-defense (i.e., when a national emergency is created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces).  In other words, in the case of non-self-defense combat the President needs explicit prior authorization by the Congress (either in the form of a declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization) to engage in a military conflict.  Furthermore, the President must terminate hostilities within 60 days (90 days if the extension is certified to the Congress as necessary) unless the Congress explicitly has authorized the conflict (see 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b)).  Since two of the three cases in which the President may introduce the armed forces into hostilities involve Congressional authorization, it seems to me that this 60 day (90 day) limit is primarily intended to address the third case, which is a response to an attack on the U.S., its territories and possessions, or its armed forces.
Recently, there has been some discussion about whether President Obama will run afoul of the War Powers Resolution if he does not receive specific Congressional authorization within the 90 day limit.  That question seems moot to me, since according to my reading the Libya conflict already was not legal under the War Powers Resolution from day one, since there was no Congressional authorization and it was not a self-defense action (as defined above).  This Wikipedia article presently treats the Libya conflict in the same manner:  as if the only issue of legality were with the 90-day limit rather than with the use of the armed forces in a non-self-defense situation without prior Congressional authorization.  Is this, perhaps, missing the point?  Ketone16 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: War Powers Resolution and Non-Self-Defense Warfare

message: The War Powers Act of November 7th, 1973 is a law passed by congress over the veto of President Nixon.  I am changing the heading to correct this error.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/635679/War-Powers-Act  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usgrant7 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects for the "War Powers Act" to the "War Powers Resolution" is deceptive. 

message: The previous paragraph concerning the founding fathers' view of a standing army is historically false.  A two-tier approach of a small Federal standing army, plus State Militias that could be called up to supplement it during times of war, was clearly envisioned by the writers of the US Constitution.  Indeed, an attempt by Elbridge Gerry and Luther Martin to introduce an explicit limit on the size of the Federal army during peacetime into the Constitution -- citing the dangers of a standing army -- was defeated on August 18, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention.  I have rewritten this paragraph to better reflect history.
Contributor tom (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding Fathers' View of Standing Army 

message: Before I do any editing, I'm seeking some clarification on the last sentence in the introduction. Specifically this part: "Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties" - The reason for my confusion is this. The two external links cited in this sentence in no way back up this statement that presidents from both parties have done this. I've done some research, and other than President Obama, I've only been able to find one other instance of a president ignoring the War Power Resolution, and that was President Clinton, when he attacked Kosovo.
President Bush had authorization under the War Powers Resolution to attack Afhganistan  , and again received it before he ordered the attack on Iraq. 
Is there something that I'm missing? Was there another time when a Republican president ignored the War Powers Resolution that I've missed? Because so far I've only been able to find instances of Democratic presidents ignoring the War Powers Resolution. - Seanr451 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reversed an edit that was done by an unregistered IP address that removed all reference to President Obama ignoring the War Powers Act. I sense an edit war coming with his followers who will do everything they can to force their POV everywhere, including on Wikipedia. Here are some more sources: The Washington Post - The New York Times - The FACT is that congress has disapproved the attack on Libya under the War Powers Resolution. This has been reported by multiple, reliable sources. I'm willing to change the wording of this sentence, if anyone finds it problematic or offensive, but I am unwilling to simply allow the facts to be erased by people who want to push their own POV. - Seanr451 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Ok, maybe ignored isn't the correct word, perhaps you'd prefer 'disregarded'? The fact is that President Obama did not seek approval of the Libyan military action that he ordered as required by the War Powers Resolution. The fact is that Congress has already disapproved the Libyan military action under the War Powers Resolution. And the fact is that President Obama has not discontinued military action in Libya. The Supreme Court of the United States of America may indeed end up deciding that the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the Libyan military action, but until it does make that decision we have to assume that it does. Perhaps you'd like to reword the sentence in a way that reflects that? Seanr451 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

text: The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the President must seek approval from Congress when involved in any military action that doesn't fall within certain exceptions. The Libyan military action does not fall into any of those exceptions (response to an attack on the US, declared state of war), and you certainly cannot argue that what we're doing in Libya isn't 'military action', so once again I say that unless and until the Supreme Court rules that the Libya military action isn't in violation of the War Powers Resolution then we have to assume that it is. Seanr451 (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence about President Obama not getting congressional approval was once again removed in a drive-by edit by an unregistered IP address without explanation, so I returned it to the artice. Seanr451 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I have reverted yet another misleading edit by yet another unregistered IP address. It seems that many people simply aren't willing to allow the truth to be stated when it conflicts with their ideology. Seanr451 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another edit from an IP address: "He went to help support the revolutionary forces, they were not there to engage in combat." The problem with that quote? U.S. fires cruise missiles on Libyan air defenses http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/19/501364/main20045015.shtml So the U.S. fires over a hundred cruise missiles at Libya and that's not engaging in combat? I'm reverting that edit. - Seanr451 (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Kaspi123 keeps editing the page stating that the War Powers Resolution didn't apply to either Presidents Clinton or Obama. Congress has stated otherwise, so since he provided no proof to back up his claim I reverted his edit. - Seanr451 (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignored By Both Parties? 

message: The intro reads, "All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional." The citations are a 2008 Newsweek article that reads "presidents of both parties have declared it unconstitutional," and a 2011 book by Donald Rumsfeld. I do not have access to the book, but I'm suspicious that the WP article's statement is taking liberties in its interpretations of the source data. If the WP article's statement is correct, we should be able to find better sources. Can someone with access to the Rumsfeld book verify whether or not it provides ample detail to support the WP article's absolute language? MatthewBurton (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That has always been a fascinating opinion, one that flies in the face of both the history of the United States of America and especially Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. For each of those presidents claim some non-extant Constitutional authority to make war and additionally make a non-constitutional argument that Congress lacks the authority to prevent them from making war. A Declaration of war by the United States is not made by any president, it is expressly issued by Congress per Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, regardless of the wishes of some presidents and their staff.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating or not, it needs to be better sourced if the encyclopedia says it is true. If we can't, we should modify the language to something like, "All presidents have violated the terms of the law during their time in office." MatthewBurton (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have ALL presidents positively declared it unconstitutional? 

message: The War Powers Act of 1973 redirects here, despite the top of this page redirecting information on the War Powers Act of 1973 to it's own separate page.24.15.224.86 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: War Powers Act of 1973

message: Sections of this article are neither objective nor historically accurate. The only mention of the 2003 war in Iraq characterizes it as Pres. Bush's response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, with minor detail. Given that the war in Iraq was launched under an objectionable (and challenged) interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the present article's characterization is woefully thin -- to the point of inaccuracy. = ws  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springdalehistorian (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisan bias 

message: At the moment, this article contains the following assertion with a citation request:
:Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.
In seeking a citation, I find that the claim as stated appears to be false, per the linked case article and more specifically the following footnote (#5) in Campbell v. Clinton, 52 F. Supp. 2d 45:
:In addition to standing and ripeness, the President also has argued that this case raises a non-justiciable political question. To the extent that the President is arguing that every case brought by a legislator alleging a violation of the War Powers Clause raises a non-justiciable political question, he is wrong. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210-11, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) ("[I]t is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.... [The Court instead must conduct] a discriminating analysis of the particular question posed" in order to determine whether the issue is justiciable); Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d at 614 (in some instances there may be "judicial competence to determine the allocation, between the executive and legislative branches, of the powers to wage war"). Because the Court concludes that plaintiffs lack standing, however, it need not reach the issue of whether this case is one in which the judicial branch has competence to adjudicate such questions.
I will therefore boldly change the sentence to indicate that the court found that the Congressional plaintiffs lack standing, and I note all of this here to preserve a record of my reasoning, to ease rollback if necessary, and to provide a venue for discussion if such is found to be needed.
—KGF0 ( T | C ) 00:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-justiciable? 

message: It appears as though the History section is just a word-for-word duplication of the Background section. Is there a need to have both sections? - 75.73.74.171 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on War Powers Resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081215114422/http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm to http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on War Powers Resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005100331/http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html to http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016025619/http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html to http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html
*Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20090630211140/http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After all... it WAS the FIRST TIME War Powers Resolution was invoked by the Congress. 
Congress puts War Powers Resolution to the test for first time 
HOUSE VOTES BILL APPLYING WAR LAW TO GRENADA MOVE
What happened? 
Collective amnesia? Editors who were born under Obama administration (second one), then dropped on their collective heads? Deletionists got drunk one night and decided to alter a bit of history and since they lacked books do some good old book burning...--31.176.204.168 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Gipper and Grenada?