And again, in Kosovo.. But no president has completely ignored it or stated it doesn't apply, as Obama has done..

Another example of the extended power of the presidency...

No Republican POTUS would have been able to get away with that, eh? :D

Michale

It would have been more correct of me to have said "the only true constitutional check". There is no other real check Congress has to presidential overreach (unless you count the "purse strings").

Speaking of Andy Jackson, this was his main argument against the Senate "censuring" him: the Constitution doesn't allow it, you are in essence impeaching me without giving me the ability to respond." They couldn't impeach him, because the Jacksonians held the House.

But you're right, there are other ways it can blow back on a president, politically and otherwise. When FDR tried court-packing (something which the Constitution was also silent on... no absolute number exists for SCOTUS), there were howls of outrage. But also, SCOTUS realized it was going too far in striking down all of the New Deal, and it significantly backed off as a result. So, FDR didn't get his larger court, but he did (as a result of a power grab) show the court that they needed to heed public opinion, as well.

Michale -

Clinton bent the provisions in a large way, too. Bosnia? One of those ex-Yogoslav trouble spots in the 90s, I'd have to look it up.

-CW

Actually, it's only been ignored once as best I can recall...

By our current POTUS.

While previous presidents have always claimed it is unconstitutional, they have always acceded to the reporting requirement of the act...

130 Reports were made to Congress in compliance with the War Powers Act since it's inception in 1973.

Only one POTUS has notified Congress that he is not under the constraints of the War Powers Act.

Barack Hussein Obama

Michale

There has never been a demonstrated need for the War Powers Act. Its about politics not Presidential overreach and oversight.

I do too. This seems like a great example of the way balanced government is supposed to work.

Ideally, it creates a balance between being able to respond quickly and limiting long drawn out mistake quagmires.

The trouble is that this act has simply been ignored. President's have found it far too easy to simply claim that any action is not a war.

Even though the 'action' may drag out for 8 years (or more).

-David

I see you get to "King Andrew" later on in the column, though. But I'm surprised you didn't get to the role of the executive branch in executing the Alien and Sedition acts.

The only true check on a president's power is an awfully drastic one: impeachment.

There are political checks. In a first term, there are his (or eventually her) prospects of re-election. At any time, there are his party's prospects in the next and subsequent elections.

There are statutory checks. If a president acts pursuant to a law, that law can be changed so that further such action is no longer authorized.

laws that in some way restrict the power of the president himself (as with the War Powers Resolution)

The War Powers Resolution doesn't directly restrict the power of the president. In its preamble, or its "whereas" section, or its obiter dicta -- whatever you want to call them -- it states Congress's opinion about what restrictions the Constitution places on presidential power. But that declaratory part does not itself restrict anything. There is no moot-judicial power in our system: neither Congress nor any court can make case law by declaration.

In its actual action, however, the War Powers Act directs the president to report certain information to Congress at certain times, and to consult with Congress, but that doesn't limit his power. It also establishes some rules of each chamber in handling such consultation. But for its main effect, it purports to restrict presidential power indirectly. Specifically, it purports to restrict Congress's own power to authorize the use of force: it claims to invalidate all future Congressional authorizations unless they meet its standard of specificity. Of course, it can't actually do so. Congress doesn't get to grant or deny powers to Congress. It takes a constitutional amendment to do that.

Though I like to think of the Congress as having the power to declare war(n)while the President gets to order armed forces to war(v). They are not interdependent.

The Constitution charges the President with defending the nation, not making war. And, as we see today, national defense rarely has to mean war.