- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
On the surface it seems the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:10 am
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:10 am
But it has been tried 5 times and the federal courts have basically held up their hands and instructed congress and the president to just work it out. The four cases are:
1. Crockett v. Reagan (1982): Eleven members of Congress challenged President Reagan’s deployment of military advisers to El Salvador, alleging a violation of the War Powers Resolution. The U.S. District Court dismissed the suit, finding that Congress had other remedies (e.g., legislation) and that the issue was a political question, not suitable for judicial review.
2. Lowry v. Reagan (1987): Members of Congress sued over Reagan’s actions in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War, claiming non-compliance with the War Powers Resolution. The court dismissed the case, citing a lack of standing and the political question doctrine.
3. Dellums v. Bush (1990): Fifty-four members of Congress sought to enjoin President George H.W. Bush from initiating military action in Iraq without congressional approval. The court declined to intervene, stating the issue was not ripe for adjudication since no military action had yet occurred and Congress had not fully asserted its authority.
4. Campbell v. Clinton (2000): A member of Congress challenged President Clinton’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, which continued beyond the 60-day limit without congressional authorization. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, ruling it a non-justiciable political question, as Congress had implicitly authorized the action by funding it, despite the Resolution stating funding does not constitute authorization.
5. Kucinich v. Obama (2011): Ten House members filed a lawsuit against President Obama’s military actions in Libya, alleging a violation of the War Powers Resolution. The court dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the issue was a political question.
With that said is seems the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is in direct violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war. And by the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 should make the War Powers Resolution of 1973 null and void.

1. Crockett v. Reagan (1982): Eleven members of Congress challenged President Reagan’s deployment of military advisers to El Salvador, alleging a violation of the War Powers Resolution. The U.S. District Court dismissed the suit, finding that Congress had other remedies (e.g., legislation) and that the issue was a political question, not suitable for judicial review.
2. Lowry v. Reagan (1987): Members of Congress sued over Reagan’s actions in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War, claiming non-compliance with the War Powers Resolution. The court dismissed the case, citing a lack of standing and the political question doctrine.
3. Dellums v. Bush (1990): Fifty-four members of Congress sought to enjoin President George H.W. Bush from initiating military action in Iraq without congressional approval. The court declined to intervene, stating the issue was not ripe for adjudication since no military action had yet occurred and Congress had not fully asserted its authority.
4. Campbell v. Clinton (2000): A member of Congress challenged President Clinton’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, which continued beyond the 60-day limit without congressional authorization. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, ruling it a non-justiciable political question, as Congress had implicitly authorized the action by funding it, despite the Resolution stating funding does not constitute authorization.
5. Kucinich v. Obama (2011): Ten House members filed a lawsuit against President Obama’s military actions in Libya, alleging a violation of the War Powers Resolution. The court dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the issue was a political question.
With that said is seems the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is in direct violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war. And by the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 should make the War Powers Resolution of 1973 null and void.
This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 9:00 am
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:17 am to GumboPot
The United States has been involved in up to 135 military conflicts (depending on how you count them) since we became a nation in 1776. Of those, Congress declared war on just five occasions.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:17 am to BugAC
IDK what’s funny but I just find it interesting that on issues of national security the judiciary just bows out.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:18 am to GumboPot
You are going to love our camp.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:19 am to RollTide1987
read it was over 400 Military incidents in almost 250 years, and only 5 declarations of War
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:20 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The United States has been involved in up to 135 military conflicts (depending on how you count them) since we became a nation in 1776. Of those, Congress declared war on just five occasions.
Did not know that.
It’s a clear demonstration that laws are basically enforced by political will or convenience.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:23 am to GumboPot
So if Trump unilaterally declares war on Iran they can revisit this issue.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:23 am to GumboPot
If missiles are launched at the USA from China, do you think that the president should have to go to Congress to get permission to launch our nukes?
The president has the authority to use the military without consent of Congress. Congress is job is to make the official declarations of war. All military actions do not rise to the level of a war.
The president has the authority to use the military without consent of Congress. Congress is job is to make the official declarations of war. All military actions do not rise to the level of a war.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:31 am to GumboPot
the president can send troops anywhere doing anything for upto 90 days without congressional approval.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:36 am to GumboPot
Not sure what happened to the old gumbo but recent posting is just abysmal
This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 8:37 am
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:37 am to omegaman66
quote:
If missiles are launched at the USA from China, do you think that the president should have to go to Congress to get permission to launch our nukes?
No. I think that is the purpose of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:37 am to AubieinNC2009
quote:
upto 90 days without congressional approval.
I'm pretty sure it's 60 days.
This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 8:44 am
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:39 am to roadGator
quote:
You are going to love our camp.
His camp name shall be........................GumboCuck.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:40 am to GumboPot
No, It's not unconstitutional.
Resolution aside, are you aware of Article II?
Article II states that the president has the power to order the use of military force against attacks, ANTICIPATED ATTACKS, or to ADVANCE OTHER IMPORTANT NATIONAL INTERESTS.
Yes, Congress is the only branch that can make an official declaration of war, but that doesn't mean every military action a president takes has to have Congressional approval.
Resolution aside, are you aware of Article II?
Article II states that the president has the power to order the use of military force against attacks, ANTICIPATED ATTACKS, or to ADVANCE OTHER IMPORTANT NATIONAL INTERESTS.
Yes, Congress is the only branch that can make an official declaration of war, but that doesn't mean every military action a president takes has to have Congressional approval.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:46 am to dafif
quote:
Not sure what happened to the old gumbo but recent posting is just abysmal
IDK why this thread seems like it's leaning political one way or another. It's a potential issue for all presidents and congresses. I'm just trying to understand the issue better by bouncing the idea off the board here.
This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 8:47 am
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:47 am to GumboPot
Opposition party says it's constitutional, party in power says it's not - rinse, repeat
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:48 am to GumboPot
quote:
IDK why this thread seems like it's leaning political one way or another.
Yeah, you do.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:50 am to GumboPot
quote:
IDK why this thread seems like it's leaning political one way or another. It's a potential issue for all presidents and congresses. I'm just trying to understand the issue better by bouncing the idea off the board here.
That’s because you are giving no context as to the actual reason behind the post. The OP insinuates that you think Trump bombing Iran is unconstitutional.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:54 am to GumboPot
I actually agree with you. This wolf comes as a wolf.
Popular
Back to top

18







