To: Rock_nj who wrote (6683 ) 5/27/2004 6:51:45 PM From: Lazarus_Long Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20039 Rry this:The War Powers Act of 1973 was a direct challenge to the president and the president's powers to commit U.S. troops into combat. The acts severely restricted the president by calling for the following: The president has to inform Congress in writing 48 hours after he commits troops into a hostile situation. Sixty days after committing troops into a hostile situation, Congress has to declare war or authorize continuous commitment. This gives Congress the power to recall the troops. Congress, at any time, can pass a concurrent resolution (a resolution passed by both houses of Congress) to recall the troops. The president cannot veto this resolution. Suddenly, Congress had the powers to recall troops that a president committed into a hostile situation. It didn't have to stand idly by while a president fought a war. Both institutions, Congress and the president, again shared war-making powers. Ironically, every president affected by the act — beginning with Nixon and including George W. Bush — has claimed that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and has refused to be bound by its terms. The Supreme Court has so far refused to rule on the constitutionality of the act. dummies.com Now until the USSC finds its cojones and declares the War Powers Act unconstitutional, it is law. That's the way it works. Don't hold your breath. As toIronically, every president affected by the act — beginning with Nixon and including George W. Bush — has claimed that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional The claim the Presidents have made is that the LIMITATIONS imposed bu it on them- -having to go to Congress after 60 days of hostilities- -is what they object to, not that they can start shooting without ANY authorization. Welcome to the Imperial Presidency.