DD Support Board and Research Team

[shajandr]

Yes, butt the real issue is that the War Powers Act is prolly unconstitutional. Which is likely one reason NO US President has ever stated that the Presidency is bound by the War Powers Act. And prolly why no alleged violations of the War Powers Act by any President (of which there have been several!) has ever resulted in a successful legal action against a President.

IF the War Powers Act was instead a Constitutional Amendment, then you might have some meaningful point. Butt since it is nott, and since it relies on a CONgressional override of Nixon's veto (and no President has ever recognized a binding effect of the War Powers Act upon the Presidential authorities conferred under the Constitution), it would/should be held unCONstitutional by Article III courts, namely the Supreme Court.

The War Powers Act is much like the Wizard of Oz, with a little man behind the curtain appearing to have powers which he really doesn't have; in this case the legislature would be the Wizard faking it.

The WPA might be a good idea, IF it was ratified as a Constitutional amendment. Butt it's nott that now.

You ought to take this nonsense to a politics board, nott here.

Treat yourself to a set of these fine marking pens: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004QN4422?ref=nb_sb_ss_w_as-reorder_k0_1_8&=&crid=3OQR8UFZ2EWAN&=&sprefix=staedler

They are great for writing on plastics, lab tapes, acetate, etc. Permanently and won't run.