It is the law until it's declared un-Constitutional by a Court. Until such time it must be obeyed. If Obama wants to make the un-Constitutional argument, then he should do so. Until then he's bound by his oath to faithfully execute the law.
On the other hand if the Pubbies had any gonads they'd strip out all funds for this misbeggoten Libyan debacle in the budget.
That is a common view, but it is not common sense. It's common nonsense and leftist nonsense at that. No conservative, in fact no rational person, should be making such a statement.
The President doesn't have to get a permission slip from the Supreme Court to fulfill his constitutional duties as he sees fit. Obama is entitled to conclude that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as have all of his predecessors since it was passed. He is free to conclude that the Resolution doesn't apply to circumstances in Libya. The only remedy if he reaches the wrong conclusion is for Congress to stick up for itself, either by impeaching him or by cutting off funds for his misbegotten Libyan adventure. Congress hasn't done either and it won't. On this matter, then Obama gets the final word. That's how separation of powers works.
The executive power of the United States is vested in the President. The Constitution says so in so many words. It doesn't say, or even hint, that the President has to consult the courts to determine what his executive responsibilities require him to do and the idea that he should is absurd. Obama’s legal interpretations are always flawed and frequently ridiculous, but he's President and he's the one with the power to make them. Elections have consequences.
The law suit seeking to enforce the WPR in court is going nowhere. The courts won't, and shouldn't, touch this. It will be dismissed as a political question, probably summarily by the District Court. It's a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch which is none of the judiciary’s business. Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope. This is one of them.
There is more than enough to throw at Obama without trying to resurrect the WPR from its constitutional grave and deploy it against him. The WPR was an artifact of the post-Watergate leftist ascendancy. It was a bad, unconstitutional, left wing idea which deliberately sought to subvert separation of powers and shackle America's military might. It's been dead for decades and good riddance. I'm all for beating up on Obama but not just any stick will do.
It's a shame that Obama’s President, but he is. He gets to exercise all the powers of the office. We can't redefine the office so that it's small enough to fit him without risking permanent damage to the constitutional order.
Wrong, and a pretty self-contradictory position for an advocate of the Constitution.
If the House passed a law stating that all executive power was transferred from the President to a Congressional Committee of Public Safety, would the President be obliged to go along with it until the Supreme Court decided to review it?
Hardly.
If the House passed a law stating that all firearms were contraband and needed to be immediately handed over to agents of the newly-created Congressional Personal Dearmamaent Task Force, would you comply and then wait for the judiciary to rule on it?
I for one wouldn't.
Do you really think Obama cares a wit regarding law?