The (LMAO) "LIBERAL" MSM

[Amianthus]

Nowhere in the War Powers Act will you find a formula saying "This is what a declaration of war has to say," or "This is how a declaration of war should be worded."

Sure it does. It has to say that it is specific authorization under section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. And the AUMF does so:

"2(b)(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

Of course, now you're gonna say that you know more about writing US legislation than the US Congress does...

[Michael Tee]

You should read what you post a little more carefully.  It refers to consistency with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, which (a) is not itself a declaration of war and (b) does not define a formula for a declaration of war.

<<Of course, now you're gonna say that you know more about writing US legislation than the US Congress does...>>

Nope, just that apparently I know more about reading it than you do.

[Amianthus]

You should read what you post a little more carefully.  It refers to consistency with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, which (a) is not itself a declaration of war and (b) does not define a formula for a declaration of war.

That section defines what is needed to introduce combatants into military hostilities (ie war). Have you read it?

Why does the "War Powers Resolution" not refer to the power for declaring and maintaining war?

[Michael Tee]

<<That section defines what is needed to introduce combatants into military hostilities (ie war). Have you read it?>>

Of course I read it.  The point is that there can be military hostilities which are not, technically, war.  As in Korea - - uniformed armies were shooting at each other.  You would say, "hostilities (i.e. war.)"  But of course you'd be wrong.  They were hostilities, there was no war.  It was officially a "police action."

<<Why does the "War Powers Resolution" not refer to the power for declaring and maintaining war?>>

Probably because the power to declare war is clearly set out in the Constitution.  The War Powers Resolution would be about "War Powers" not defined in the Constitution, i.e. the power (falling short of a declaration of war) to send U.S. troops into combat-like activities.  Giving the President something that would permit him to start wars without having to go through the technicalities demanded by the Constitution for declaring war.

[Amianthus]

Giving the President something that would permit him to start wars without having to go through the technicalities demanded by the Constitution for declaring war.

Funny, you're the exact opposite argument that the original proponents of the War Powers Act used; ie, that Presidents have been using war powers without Congress' consent.

[Michael Tee]

I think they wanted to curtail the "imperial president" but didn't have the balls, so they settled for a sham - - in effect, delegation of the war-making power with nominal "oversight" by Congress.  Fooling nobody.