Should Obama seek authorization through the Congress to satisfy the War Powers Act?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I believe he must.

If he doesn't -- especially after Libya -- the WPA would effectively be dead. A law passed to rein-in the like of Richard Nixon will have been obviated through non-compliance by a Democratic president and non-enforcement by a GOP-led congress that never liked the law. At the end of the day we're saying a US president can commit troops and Congress won't have a say in it except for the politically volatile mechanism of defunding troops already in harm's way.

This is what we have been reduced to. I pray honor and a safe, speedy return to those who obey the orders from the CinC but I'm done with these political types. We're the only ones expected to obey their laws. They're all hypocrites, deceivers and criminals.

[LiberalArkie]

1. Well back when HRC was in the Senate, they gave the authority to go to

war to fight terror forever I guess. So as long as someone can say "They are a terrorist" I guess the president can send as many soldiers anywhere he/she wants to for as log as he/she wants to. At least that is what I remember, I hope I am wrong.

[TexasBushwhacker]

2. Yes, I would prefer it.

If for no other reason than it would give voters a chance to let their Senators and Representatives know their feelings. I just don't think it's wise to get heavily involved in another country's civil war, especially with Russia in the mix.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Good question. An article on the issue...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/258726-syria-troop-deployment-stirs-war-bill-debate

[kelliekat44]

4. I thought he already had done this but Congress refuses or ignores him. nt

[PADemD]

5. Yes