Here's the whole law. It's pretty short and easy to understand (relatively), so everyone go read the whole thing.
§1541 (c) states "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."
The
only circumstances under which the President may exercise his military powers are under a declaration of war OR with specific Congressional approval OR when we are in immediate and direct danger.
§1543 (a) and 1544 (b) (below), when read on their own, can seem to imply that the President can do anything without a declaration of war as long as he's done within 60 days; however, read in context with §1541, I don't see how it can mean that, regardless of what Wikipedia thinks.
"In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report ...
"Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States."
(§1543 (a) and 1544 (b))
"In the absence of a declaration of war" means that we're either in (2) or (3) under §1541 (c). The only way the President can exercise military powers without any form of Congressional approval is when we are directly threatened and there is no time for Congressional debate. Libya poses no direct threat to us, and there was plenty of time for Congress to discuss this — we waited two weeks for UN approval. And that, I think, is the most [darn]ing piece of this whole thing. Whether or not Obama is technically in violation of the letter of the law, he is undeniably violating the spirit. §1542 says "The President in
every possible instance shall consult with Congress
before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations." We certainly could've had Congressional consultation and discussion and debate and even approval of this in the two weeks we were waiting on the UN.
[To address the Wikipedia summary you quoted: It's not saying you can go up to 60 days carte blanche without any Congressional approval, it's saying you need Congressional approval to go beyond 60 days —
which does not necessarily imply that you don't need Congressional approval for the 60 days in the first place. The only situation in which the President can forego any Congressional approval is when we are under an immediate and direct threat, and even then, the President must seek Congressional approval to go beyond that sixty days (unless Congress is physically unable to meet due to the attack in question, in which case he can have at most another thirty).]
One final note: It cannot be argued that the War Powers Resolution "gives" the President the power to do anything. §1547 (d) says "Nothing in this chapter ... shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this chapter.
And five replies were posted while I was typing that. To PL: I still think your reading of the law is wrong in context. The entire text of the law must be read through §1541 (c). Also:
Of course the area has to be hostile, which in this case it is.
That's silly. If the only requirement to keep them there was that the area has to be hostile, there's no requirement at all. We're sending the military there; if it wasn't hostile before, it certainly will be once we start shooting people. Where are you getting that from the law?
To SB: Obama is by no means the first president to blatantly disregard this law, to be sure, but that doesn't make him less of a hypocrite.
To Luigison:
Since the US Congress has ratified the UN Treaty that could be argued would give the President power to us the Armed Forces without a declaration of war or attack on the US. It could also be argued that any UN mandate is not binding in this context. I'm not a constitutional lawyer/scholar so I'm not sure, but thought you should see more of the War Powers Act before judging it.
(For those playing along at home, we're looking at §1547 (a) (2): "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 ... from any treaty ... unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing 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 chapter."
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Do you have a link to the full text of the treaty/mandate you're talking about? Is it an old general all-encompassing thing (in which case it couldn't fall under "specific statutory authorization"), or something specific to this situation? If it's specific to this situation and was ratified by Congress before military action started, there might be something there. However, the "unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing..." part sounds to me like it's saying that Congress still needs to specifically approve the military action beforehand; that all the same requirements still have to be met with or without a treaty.
