Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: More Congressional Stupidity On Grenada
Message-ID: <703@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Nov-83 09:13:28 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.703
Posted: Fri Nov 18 09:13:28 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Nov-83 03:43:53 EST
References: <478@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 43

Ah, the War Powers Act.  Glad someone finally brought it up.

The purpose of the War Powers Act is to distinguish between the President's
authority as Commander in Chief, and the Congress' authority to declare war.
Let me first quote the relevant sections of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8:
	The Congress shall have Power .... To declare War, grant Letters
	of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land
	and Water;

Article II, Section 2:
	The President shall be Commander in Cheif of the Army and Navy of
	the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
	called into the actual Service of the United States.

Where do you draw the line between the two functions?  In an age when a
war can be fought without formal declaration, what is Congress' role?

Nixon did indeed veto it because he felt it infringed on the powers of
the Presidency (though of course, such an opinion is just that, and is not
legally binding).  On the other hand, some liberals opposed it because
they felt it legalized a power the President never really had before:  to
send troops into combat without the permission of Congress.  Despite this
opposition, the Act was passed over Nixon's veto.  The Supreme Court has
never ruled on it.

A new complication arose within the last year.  The Court struck down the
so-called "legislative veto", whereby Congress could provide, by law, for
a mechanism that would let it block an act of an executive department.
One case in point concerned FTC rules:  Congress tried to set things up so
that one house could pass a resolution disapproving any new FTC rule.  The
Court held that Congress could act only by passing a bill in both houses,
and either getting the President to sign it, or passing it over his veto.
Based on this ruling, some people have claimed that the War Powers Act is
invalid, since it is indeed a form of legislative veto.  On the other
hand, it does try to reconcile two conflicting Constitutional provisions.

A group of liberal Representatives has now filed suit against the
President, claiming that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and
that he had no right to send U.S. troops to Grenada.  I suspect that
it will be thrown out of court as moot, as the troops will almost
certainly be withdrawn before any ruling can be made.