Reply #24: Actually, not: he's already in violation

[PurityOfEssence]

Don't mean to bust your chops on this one; you've been steadfastly on the correct side of this issue and eloquent in your posts.

First off, as we both know, he had no authority to initiate conflict in the first place, since there was no Declaration of War, Authorization or Attack upon us. He sent a letter within the 48 hours of first combat, but it had none of the required specifics of forces, timetables and all that.

Fine. Whatever. Regardless of the illegality of the deployment in the first place, he has 60 days from introducing armed forces into hostilities, unless Congress authorizes more time or Declares War. He may ask for 30 further days for withdrawal, but it's ONLY for withdrawal, not continued hostile action. He has to do this in writing, and Congress has to assent. He did not do this. On the sixtieth day, he asked for Congress' compliance for continued action NOT for 30 days to withdraw.

The fact that Congress hasn't acted is not a good thing, but it still puts him at odds with the law.

5(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Sorry to be a snot about this, but I want people to understand just how far outside the law (and the UN Participation Act as well) that our President is. This is horrible. It's imperious, flagrant, arrogant and just plain wrong. This man is a Constitutional Scholar; he knows that this law is the standing legal definition of constitutionality of the division of war powers, and yet he goes on anyway. That is a damning reflection of his character.