War Powers Resolution Revisited

Re Iran, N. Korea and other potential hotspots worldwide, interest in the WAR POWERS ACT (1973) is front and center yet again. To get a better handle on the subject, I checked out the Congressional Research Services, upon which Congress heavily relies when divining WPA meaning and both presidential and congressional authority in that regard, as well as the analyses of WPA by both the American Bar Association and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Distilling all that legalese into a sensible summary was challenging, but in the most abbreviated form possible, here it is:

1. WPA, or War Powers Resolution, requires the "collective judgement" of both the President and Congress before the President may commit military force, except when "repelling a sudden attack" upon the USA itself.

2. The President must "consult" with Congress before committing armed forces into existing or "imminent hostilities".

3. RE the "legislative veto", unless Congress approves continued deployment of military forces, US forces must be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of deployment, except if Congress is unable to act owing to an armed attack on the USA itself.

4. As to preemptive attacks by the USA on states or other entities that constitute a WMD or otherwise imminent threat to the homeland, such preventive or preemptive attacks appear to be a legitimate exercise of Presidential authority--unless Congress specifically prohibits such action, something not likely since preemptive attacks occasioned by imminent threats to the homeland will have already taken place, this owing to the emergent character of those situations.

Since the CRS analysis both cites and explains the constitutional bases for US deployments all the way back to the Korean War, and since it mercifully avoided the murky ambiguity of lawyerly explication and pedantry, CRS was the best and clearest summary. And, again, it is the CRS analysis upon which both Congress and the President traditionally rely for guidance.