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 by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
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.

This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 9:00 am
Posted by BugAC
St. George
Member since Oct 2007
56722 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:12 am to
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
69210 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:17 am to
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 by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:17 am to
IDK what’s funny but I just find it interesting that on issues of national security the judiciary just bows out.
Posted by roadGator
Member since Feb 2009
154236 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:18 am to
You are going to love our camp.
Posted by tigeraddict
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2007
14339 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:19 am to
read it was over 400 Military incidents in almost 250 years, and only 5 declarations of War
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:20 am to
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 by BuckeyeGoon
Member since Jan 2025
854 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:23 am to
So if Trump unilaterally declares war on Iran they can revisit this issue.
Posted by omegaman66
greenwell springs
Member since Oct 2007
26239 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:23 am to
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.
Posted by AubieinNC2009
Mountain NC
Member since Dec 2018
7028 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:31 am to
the president can send troops anywhere doing anything for upto 90 days without congressional approval.
Posted by dafif
Member since Jan 2019
7822 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:36 am to
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 by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:37 am to
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 by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:37 am to
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 by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
26758 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:39 am to
quote:

You are going to love our camp.


His camp name shall be........................GumboCuck.
Posted by AC1221
Member since May 2025
84 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:40 am to
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.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:46 am to
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 by shinerfan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
27837 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:47 am to
Opposition party says it's constitutional, party in power says it's not - rinse, repeat
Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
26758 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:48 am to
quote:

IDK why this thread seems like it's leaning political one way or another.



Yeah, you do.
Posted by pankReb
Defending National Champs Fan
Member since Mar 2009
71255 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:50 am to
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 by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
84205 posts
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:54 am to
I actually agree with you. This wolf comes as a wolf.

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram