- - Sunday, September 8, 2013

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

I must respectfully disagree with Andrew Napolitano’s interpretation of the War Powers Act (also known as the War Powers Resolution). The judge’s Sept. 5 Commentary piece (“War: What is it good for?”) reads, in part, “[F]ederal law permits the president to commit U.S. military forces anywhere he wants for up to 90 days, without express authorization from Congress.”

The War Powers Act does not say that. It says: “The constitutional powers of the president as commander in chief to introduce United States armed forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” In other words, there has to be a congressional authorization except in emergency.

In Syria, we face no emergency.

EUGENE G. WINDCHY

Alexandria

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide