Presidential lawlessness, RE: Libya

[BenNatuf]

Much debate has been given to the Presidents authority or lack thereof to order attacks on Libya. Here is my assessment of that subject.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations... undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special... agreements, armed forces... necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

3. The ...agreements... shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

it can be seen in AR 43 that any support given to the UN in support of UNSC resolutions must be in accordance with a "special agreements", and "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes"

So whether or not we are obligated under the UN Charter to provide support is completely dependent on whether or not there are any AR 43 agreements

There are not, but just to continue as if there were...

Constitution

1. Article 1 sec 8 gives the Congress the power to declare war.

2. Article 2 makes the President the CinC of the armed forces.

3. Article 3 gives the SCOTUS the authority to decide all cases in law and equity in accordance with the Constitution of the US, laws, and treaties.

To find the extent of these powers, we must look to the law. First and foremost what in the law is "war"?

every contention by force between two nations, in external matters, under the authority of their respective governments, is not only war, but public war

Is there a contention by force between two nations under the authority of their respective governments?

Yes, if your honest.

Some may attempt to argue that since congress has not authorized it it is not "under the authority" of the US government. That may be true, but its irrellevant as the president is the CinC and he is the "authority" the action is being conducted under, making the argument circular in reasonning as, if he is the authority, then it is war and if it is war, we return to the question of whether the President as CinC can make war without a declaration of war.

So, by virtue of the opinion of the Constituional body empowered to say what war is our actions in Libya constitute "war".

Is this war "lawful"? To answer this we must determine first what a DoW is.

From the Constitutional body empowered to decide these thing.

hostilities may subsist between two nations more confined in its nature and extent; being limited as to places, persons, and things; and this is more properly termed imperfect war; because not solemn, and because those who are authorised to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no farther than to the extent of their commission. Still, however, it is public war...

Here we see that an authorization to commit acts of war from the Congress is in fact "war". Lest you be confused they made it simple

In fact and in law we are at war

Does the President have legitimate authority to make war? To answer this we must answer two question.

1. Does the president hold himself the power to make war without Congressional authorization?

2. If not, is the action in Libya authorized by the Congress?

War Powers Resolution

SEC. 2.

(a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities...

(b)...the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The 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) ...attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities... which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

Here the Congress is clear, and the law is clear. The president may commit forces into hostilities either

1. persuant to a declaration of war
2. persuant to specific statuatory authorization
3. To respond to an attack, repel an invasion, or prevent an imminent attack.

The WPR cannot be used as authorization. Seperate and specific statuatory authorization is required.

Some have used the Consultation provision to justify the action, but this completely overlooks that the Consultation is neccessary only in the event the action is authorized to begin with, as if its not, there will be no action and no reason to cunsult. Complying with the consultation provisions after the fact, does not create authorization for the acts to be taken before the fact. This argument is akin to robbing a bank and then claiming it's OK because you didn't cheat on your taxes. Not to mention the text of the WPR prohibits its use.

1 and 3 are not applicable that leaves 2: Specific statuatory authorization.

Is there specific statuatory authorization? To find this out we have to look at treaty provisions and the laws enacted to empower them.

The NATO Treaty.

Some have claimed we have an obligation under the NATO treaty which empowers the President as it has the force of law and has been ratified. But what exactly does the NATO Charter say?

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Has a NATO country been attacked by Libya?

No.

End of NATO treaty argument.

This brings us to laws enacted to empower AR 42 and 43 of the UN Charter

The United Nations Participation Act of December 20, 1945

The President is authorized to negotiate... agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution...for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43...

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special... agreements the armed forces... provided for therein:

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose... forces...in addition to the forces... provided for in such special... agreements

1. The President is empowered to negotiate agreements under AR 43 which are subject to Congressional authorization.

2. The President may use troops covered under such AR 43 at his discretion in furtherance of an AR 42 resolution.

3. No troops other than those who are covered under an AR 43 agreements may be used without Congressional authorization.

Is there an AR 43 agreement in force that the president could draw forces from to act in furtherance of a UNSC AR 42 resolution?

No.

Is the President legally authorized to commit troops not covered in an AR 43 agreement?

No. In fact, he's restricted from it.

The Congress has the Constitutional power to "make all laws necessary and proper all powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States or officer thereof"

The President is an Officer of the United States, and persuant to the Congressional authority to declare war they have restricted the Presidents ability to make war without their authorization to "respond to an attack, repel an invasion, or prevent an imminent attack".

They have empowered him to engage in UNSC actions under AR 43 to "negotiate a special agreement or agreements which shall be subject subject to the approval of the Congress" they further empower him to act without further authorization in support of AR 42 of the UN Charter "pursuant to such special agreements" and restrict him from the use of any other forces except those covered in AR 43 agreements.

Clearly there is no legal authority for the President to act in Libya. Further, it is clearly unlawful for him to do so without Congressional authorization.

Avalon Project - NATO Treaty; April 4, 1949

War Powers Resolution of 1973

BAS V. TINGY, 4 U. S. 37 :: Volume 4 :: 1800 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article II: Annotations pg. 12 of 18

 

[BenNatuf]

If I missed any of the Arguments in favor of Presidential authority sans congressional action, feel free to make them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I missed any of the Arguments in favor of Presidential authority sans congressional action, feel free to make them.

All very nice.

The Obama agrees with you - according to Him, the Constitution gives the Commander in Chief no such power:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Boston.com - Special reports - News

 

[percysunshine]

It is obvious that Obama is going to run for President of Libya in 2012. He sure as heck will not win here.

He is just laying out the groundwork for future kenetic despotism.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The President has violated NO laws. Bottom line. Period.

Even if he did violate the WPA, there's NO enforcement provision in it, no criminal element.

Congress can de-fund the action, that's about it. People who are calling for impeachment or any other such action look as stupid as they did in 2004 with Booooosh.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The President has violated NO laws. Bottom line. Period.

Even if he did violate the WPA, there's NO enforcement provision in it, no criminal element.

Congress can de-fund the action, that's about it. People who are calling for impeachment or any other such action look as stupid as they did in 2004 with Booooosh.

The only person discussing impeachment over a President unilaterally going to war w/o congressional approval is Joe Biden.

 

[percysunshine]

The President has violated NO laws. Bottom line. Period.

Even if he did violate the WPA, there's NO enforcement provision in it, no criminal element.

Congress can de-fund the action, that's about it. People who are calling for impeachment or any other such action look as stupid as they did in 2004 with Booooosh.

The only person discussing impeachment over a President unilaterally going to war w/o congressional approval is Joe Biden.

Joe is a gift...if only as a reference point....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The President has violated NO laws. Bottom line. Period.

Even if he did violate the WPA, there's NO enforcement provision in it, no criminal element.

Congress can de-fund the action, that's about it. People who are calling for impeachment or any other such action look as stupid as they did in 2004 with Booooosh.

The only person discussing impeachment over a President unilaterally going to war w/o congressional approval is Joe Biden.

Far from it. Have you not been keeping up? The same little group of Congresspukes who wailed during Booooosh are wailing now. At least they are consistently wrong and stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The President has violated NO laws. Bottom line. Period.

Even if he did violate the WPA, there's NO enforcement provision in it, no criminal element.

Congress can de-fund the action, that's about it. People who are calling for impeachment or any other such action look as stupid as they did in 2004 with Booooosh.

The only person discussing impeachment over a President unilaterally going to war w/o congressional approval is Joe Biden.

Far from it. Have you not been keeping up? The same little group of Congresspukes who wailed during Booooosh are wailing now. At least they are consistently wrong and stupid.

Well... it seems to me that if the President doesn't believe He has the power to do what he is doing and that the VP believes doing what the President is doing is an impeachable offense, then impeachment -must- be a reasonable course of action.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The only person discussing impeachment over a President unilaterally going to war w/o congressional approval is Joe Biden.

Far from it. Have you not been keeping up? The same little group of Congresspukes who wailed during Booooosh are wailing now. At least they are consistently wrong and stupid.

Well... it seems to me that if the President doesn't believe He has the power to do what he is doing and that the VP believes doing what the President is doing is an impeachable offense, then impeachment -must- be a reasonable course of action.

The VP is, and was, WRONG.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Far from it. Have you not been keeping up? The same little group of Congresspukes who wailed during Booooosh are wailing now. At least they are consistently wrong and stupid.

Well... it seems to me that if the President doesn't believe He has the power to do what he is doing and that the VP believes doing what the President is doing is an impeachable offense, then impeachment -must- be a reasonable course of action.

The VP is, and was, WRONG.

Of course he was.
That's not the point.

 

[BenNatuf]

The President has violated NO laws. Bottom line. Period.

false

Even if he did violate the WPA, there's NO enforcement provision in it, no criminal element.

doesn't have to be

Congress can de-fund the action, that's about it. People who are calling for impeachment or any other such action look as stupid as they did in 2004 with Booooosh.

except of course that its easily demonstable that Obama's actions are unlawful. In that the Congress TWICE stated in two seperate laws that the actions he's taking are NOT AUTHORIZED.

WPR

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities... which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

not granted authority

UN Charter

nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose... forces...in addition to the forces... provided for in such special... agreements

not granted authority

the president authority to engage with military forces is limitted, not only by the constitution, but by the law.

His actions are UNLAWFUL

what do you call it when you unlawfully cause the death of other persons?

§ 1112. Manslaughter
(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:
Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.

United States Code: Title 18,1112. Manslaughter | LII / Legal Information Institute

further causing any of these things to be done

(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

without the protection of this provision

(3) Inapplicability of certain provisions with respect to collateral damage or incident of lawful attack.— The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to—
(A) collateral damage; or
(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.

is a war crime

United States Code: Title 18,2441. War crimes | LII / Legal Information Institute

Yes, he has committed crimes.

 

[BenNatuf]

The President has violated NO laws. Bottom line. Period.

Even if he did violate the WPA, there's NO enforcement provision in it, no criminal element.

Congress can de-fund the action, that's about it. People who are calling for impeachment or any other such action look as stupid as they did in 2004 with Booooosh.

The only person discussing impeachment over a President unilaterally going to war w/o congressional approval is Joe Biden.

Far from it. Have you not been keeping up? The same little group of Congresspukes who wailed during Booooosh are wailing now. At least they are consistently wrong and stupid.

They were wrong about Bush because his actions were authorized by the Congress, they are not wrong here as Obama's actions are clearly not only not authorized but specifically not authorized by the United nations Participation act and the WPR. Making his actions clearly unlawful.

 

[BenNatuf]

Far from it. Have you not been keeping up? The same little group of Congresspukes who wailed during Booooosh are wailing now. At least they are consistently wrong and stupid.

Well... it seems to me that if the President doesn't believe He has the power to do what he is doing and that the VP believes doing what the President is doing is an impeachable offense, then impeachment -must- be a reasonable course of action.

The VP is, and was, WRONG.

he was and is clearly right, though to be sure he is more right in this circumstance than he would have been vis a vie Iran.

 

[Trajan]

he has the power to do what hes doing. we may not like how he is doing 'it', but he does, period.

The however is, he knew in February where ths was going and should have had a chat with congress Face to Face before he took off for Brazil, and that hes been back for a week and even though they were in recess, he should have made that a priority. Lets see what happens this week.

 

[BenNatuf]

he has the power to do what hes doing. we may not like how he is doing 'it', but he does, period.

Is this the extent of your argument? How convincing!!!

perhaps you'd be interested in actually explaining where in the law the authority eminates from? I mean since I have displayed where in the law he's SPECIFICALLY not authorized to act.

 

[Trajan]

he has the power to do what hes doing. we may not like how he is doing 'it', but he does, period.

Is this the extent of your argument? How convincing!!!

perhaps you'd be interested in actually explaining where in the law the authority eminates from? I mean since I have displayed where in the law he's SPECIFICALLY not authorized to act.

you cut off the rest of my quote.


here;

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.[citation needed] The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.


as to the argument of declared war, which this is not;

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt[4] argues "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception". The Framers of the Constitution believed[citation needed]that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only[citation needed] total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800); in general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the president commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized. Bobbitt also argues that "A democracy cannot ... tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BenNatuf]

he has the power to do what hes doing. we may not like how he is doing 'it', but he does, period.

Is this the extent of your argument? How convincing!!!

perhaps you'd be interested in actually explaining where in the law the authority eminates from? I mean since I have displayed where in the law he's SPECIFICALLY not authorized to act.

you cut off the rest of my quote.


here;

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.[citation needed] The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Did you miss what your link said? I highlited it for you.

Your synapses is exactly the argument thats already been negated. It takes the reporting requirements and attempts to use them as authority. The WPR specifically does not allow that. As I said in the OP, it's akin to robbing a bank and them claiming it's OK becuse you reported the income on your taxes.

The WPR identifies when the president can introduce forces in sec 2

(c) The 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.

You will note of course that the resolution specifically states ONLY PURSUANT TO it goes on to specifically state that no portion of the WPR can be used to infer authorization where no authority exists without it

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution

To whit, the WPR can NEVER be used to infer authorization as even in the event of attack (to include imminent attack), the WPR assumes that authority always existed in the first place.

as to the argument of declared war, which this is not;

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt[4] argues "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception". The Framers of the Constitution believed[citation needed]that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only[citation needed] total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800); in general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the president commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized. Bobbitt also argues that "A democracy cannot ... tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

your wiki selection does not support your argument, it supports mine. His argument is that a "Declaration of War" need not be a "Declaration of War" but that war can be by statutory authorization, such as was done in the Quasi war and ruled on by the SCOTUS. Where we find the binding LEGAL deffinition of war.

every contention by force between two nations, in external matters, under the authority of their respective governments, is not only war, but public war. If it be declared in form, it is called solemn, and is of the perfect kind; because one whole nation is at war with another whole nation; and all the members of the nation declaring war, are authorised to commit hostilities against all the members of the other, in every place, and under every circumstance. In such a war all the members act under a general authority, and all the rights and consequences of war attach to their condition.

But hostilities may subsist between two nations more confined in its nature and extent; being limited as to places, persons, and things; and this is more properly termed imperfect war; because not solemn, and because those who are authorised to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no farther than to the extent of their commission. Still, however, it is public war... In fact and in law we are at war

BAS V. TINGY, 4 U. S. 37 :: Volume 4 :: 1800 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Now whose opinion carries more legal weight? The SCOTUS' or Phillip Bobbit's? Who contrary to your misunderstanding of his writing (or what you've posted of it), supports my argument, not yours.

BTW, the law regulating our support of UN resolutions is the one that should be regulating activities in support of UN resolutions, and its linked in the OP too. Good luck with your argument.

 

[Trajan]

First of all, I don’t sppt. this action.

However I am not going to use this as a reason to beat up Obama simply because I don’t agree with him in this or much else or because hes a Liberal dem. , he is not the first to use this creative shuffle. If I recall in the 90's a circuit court refused to hear a case brought by congressman due to lack of standing which I personally find ridiculous but there it is.

He published an exec. order feb. 25th where in he framed Libya as;

‘have caused a deterioration in the security of Libya and pose a serious risk to its stability, thereby constituting an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat’.

Executive Orders | The White House


The founders purposely put the direction of war into the executive’s hand. The declaration of war, in that we state we are at war with so and so for the following…… is whether you find fault with the semantics or not , not the same as directing action in what the exec. Declares an emergency ( see above).

I don’t think this ranks up there, he had time to go to congress and make his case for a sanctioned action, he certainly circumvented by his not so clever verbiage as in “national security and foreign policy of the United States “ as no. 3) states;

“a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”.

Now, he must be held accountable, BUT that does not mean that in the past nor in the future will the president require or be required to engage before congress can be consulted or act.



and you 2 posts back bolded my war powers quote for your point, I quote and bold my point-

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days,

 

[BenNatuf]

First of all, I don’t sppt. this action.

I happen to think it's the right thing to do, and would even be right to do once the Congress authorizes it.

However I am not going to use this as a reason to beat up Obama simply because I don’t agree with him in this or much else or because hes a Liberal dem. , he is not the first to use this creative shuffle. If I recall in the 90's a circuit court refused to hear a case brought by congressman due to lack of standing which I personally find ridiculous but there it is.

That a court refused to hear an unknown case that cannot be judged on its merit is kind of meaningless. The fact that he's not the first to subvert the law in no way excuses him from subverting the law. Unless of course you think its OK to rob Banks because some people got away with it.

He published an exec. order feb. 25th where in he framed Libya as;

‘have caused a deterioration in the security of Libya and pose a serious risk to its stability, thereby constituting an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat’.

Executive Orders | The White House

Where in the WPR does it say he was ever authorized to respond to percieved threats? It says ATTACK, this would include imminent attacks, it would not include "threats" of any kind. This argument is Obama's "because I said so" argument, and its completely worthless. The action taken is taken under the auspices of a UN resolution authorizing it, and their is a LAW regulating our participation regarding UN resolutions. That is the applicable law to look to.

The founders purposely put the direction of war into the executive’s hand. The declaration of war, in that we state we are at war with so and so for the following…… is whether you find fault with the semantics or not , not the same as directing action in what the exec. Declares an emergency ( see above).

I don’t think this ranks up there, he had time to go to congress and make his case for a sanctioned action, he certainly circumvented by his not so clever verbiage as in “national security and foreign policy of the United States “ as no. 3) states;

“a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”.

Now, he must be held accountable, BUT that does not mean that in the past nor in the future will the president require or be required to engage before congress can be consulted or act.

The Presidents declaration of a national emergency creating a "threat" does not translate into a national emergency created by an attack. I don't know what part of that is hard to understand. The President has no authority to commit forces to combat to respond to a percieved "threat" that he himself declares. If he did his power to engage in war would be limitless.

and you 2 posts back bolded my war powers quote for your point, I quote and bold my point-

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days,

That is a reporting requirement not an authorization to use force. The act CLEARLY states when force can be used, and CLEARY STATES that the act itself can NEVER be used as authorization. It requires the President to submit reports for constitutionally AUTHORIZED actions, it does not grant authority for unauthorized actions.

There is no Declaration of war
There is no specific statutory authorization
There has been no attack or no imminent attack.

Under the act the actions are NOT authorized.

To use the reporting requirements as an authorization you have to ignore the rest of the law in its entirety. That ain't the way the law works.

and again, this is equivalent to robbing a bank and then claiming its legal because you reported the income on your taxes.