[OldDeckHand]

"However, she wasn't alone in this call for extremely limited action.."

You're right - she was right there with Samntha Powers and Hilary Clinton, two other great American conservative thinkers - oh, wait.

"Well then I guess ..."

I stopped reading at "I guess". It's not a very complete "doctrine" if it leaves people to guess, now is it?

"You are aware such powers not only exist, but are crucial for a president to use properly in order to prevent the need for congressionally approved, open war - right? "

What I am aware of is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. I didn't hear Palin calling for a resolution for Libya, did you. How exactly is a no-fly zone over Libya - ""a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

I'm all ears.

"Do you think it does? Why?"

You bet I do, especially when it doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the War Powers Resolution.

[fluffdaddy]

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Every President since it was passed has treated it as such. The President's power as CinC is not infinite, but it does cover a lot of ground. Congress has some leverage because the President can't do anything for long without an appropriation to fund it. That said, complaining that Presidents haven't complied with the War Powers act is strictly for the tin foil hat fringe.

[Da Bilge Troll]

it doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the War Powers Resolution.

Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is Constitutional?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

LOL. You’re like a friggin’ rottweiler who won’t let go of a turkey leg!

[FreeReign]

You bet I do, especially when it doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.

The Constitution states the powers of the president and congress when it comes to commanding, declaring and funding wars.

The War Powers Resolution of course can't change powers as defined in the Constitution.