Reply #72: Not so simple. Start with the Constitution, which gives Congress the

[No Elephants]

EXCLUSIVE power to raise armies and navies (then being the only kind of troops known), the EXCLUSIVE power to declare war and the EXCLUSIVE power to fund wars (or anything else). And, subject to the foregoing exclusive powers of Congress, the President has Constitutional power as Commander in Chief of the troops (though Congress has power.

(That way, a good portion of the people who voted to declare war will answer for their votes at the polls within two years, at most.)

So far, so good, from the Continental Congress until 1950-1962 or so.

However, then came the Korean "Police Action" and the Vietnam Something or Other, where Presidents got us involved in wars without so much as a "by your leave" to Congress, raising serious Constitutional "questions, to put it euphemistically. So, we got the War Powers Resolution of 1963.

Btw, anything passed by Congress and signed by the President (or veto overridden) as the Constitution provides IS a law, regardless of whether they call it "law" or "resolution" or "Harry." However, as with any law, the question arises, "Is the War Powers Resolution a Constitutionally valid law, or does the War Powers Resolution conflict with/violate the Constitution?"

Some say, "It's Constitutional." Some say, "No, it provides for an unconstitutional delegation to the President of Congress' EXCLUSIVE power to declare war." Still others say, "No, it's an unconstitutional restriction on the powers of the President as Commander in Chief."

And, now, we have the Executive Branh not only starting a war without a delaration of war by Congress, as required by the Constitution, but also saying it will ignore Congress if Congress says "Stop," as the War Powers Resolution of 1963 gives Congress the power to do.

As I said, "Not so simple."