Replies

There has never been and will never be a Supreme Court opinion issued on the validity of the War Powers Act. Any case on the subject would present a non-justiciable political question. The only law on the subject emerges from the course of dealing between Congress and the President. Presidents deny that the War Powers Act is valid and Congress won't take any steps to enforce it. That's where the matter ends. The law in question isn't valid. It is a dead letter.

Yes some future Congress could, in theory, try to revive it. France could restore the Bourbon monarchy and Russia could bring back the Romanovs, but it isn't going to happen. Unless you want to be a laughingstock on a par with French and Russian monarchists, it's time to give up this weird obsession with the War Powers Act. To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about.

"There has never been and will never be a Supreme Court opinion issued on the validity of the War Powers Act"

You should have stopped right there. Everything that comes after, is wrong.

In this country, acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't have to validate any law the Legislature passes. Put another way, laws enacted by Congress are constitutional until the Supreme Court says that they aren't. But, you knew that already, right?

Whether or not the Court would hear a challenge to the War Power Resolution, or dismiss it as a nonjusticiable political question, until the Supreme Court says it's not constitutional, it is constitutional.

"It is a dead letter."

There you go again, using phrases you don't understand.

"To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about."

Whatever I do or do not know, it's pretty clear that we've established you don't have the frist clue about American jurisprudence.

Lastly, if the War Power Act didn't mean anything, as you suggest, why then did George HW Bush get an authorization for force in 1991, and why did his son get one 10-years later?

The question of the War Powers Act is not a legal one, it is a philosophical one. I do NOT want another White House occupant who believes the US Armed Forces is their own private diplomatic tool. Considering most founders didn't even want a standing army, it's unlikely to believe almost any of them would agree to the carte blanche presidents have exercised in their application of global military force.