Did Trump violate the War Powers Act?

[TXCritter]

A lot of people here have pointed out that the President has the power to initiate military action without a Declaration of War as long as he reports back to Congress.

That is the effect of the precedent set by the inaction of congress but, in fact, the president may not have the necessary justification to bomb Syria under the law.

The War 15 USC §1541(c) clearly states;

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.

Congress has not declared War since 1941.

There is no statutory authorization to Bomb Syria that I am aware of. (Anybody? )

Syria has not attacked the US, its terrritories, possessions or its armed forces.

I believe this attack was a violation of the US Constitution and Federal Law. Can anyone offer me "statutory authorization" to justify it?

[CincyDem]

1. I think you forgot point (4)...IOKIYAR. n/t

[TXCritter]

3. Silly me!

[CincyDem]

4. I'm happy I could learn ya on this one. My good deed for the day. !

[onecaliberal]

2. Yes. The exact reason President Obama never retaliated because repukes would not authorize

[Yupster]

6. Didn't stop him in Libya

No authorization there and he bombed away anyway.

Neither side is innocent on this one.

[onecaliberal]

8. He went to the UN so please spare me from the both sides do it bullshit.

Obama also accepted refugees. If that orange maggot cared he would NOT ban them from the United States.

[bigtree]

5. legal experts say the Syrian airstrikes were unconstitutional

Link to tweet

[malaise]

7. Yes

and he also violated International Law

Lock him up

[femmocrat]

9. I asked on Twitter, so what will the consequences be?

I got a lot of smart-ass replies, mostly saying that there will be none because he's trump.

Seriously though, who would charge him with such violations? Congress? Doubt it. Justice Dept? Nah. No consequences.

[TXCritter]

10. Yes, of course

The answer is 'None" as it has been in every such case since 1973.

We need to start a new campaign to strengthen and limit the war powers act and to force congress to take action against such cases.

[femmocrat]

13. We will have to wait for a democratic majority for that to happen. nt

[Lurks Often]

11. The War Powers Act itself may not be constitutional

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality

and since it's enactment, Congress and the White House have not chosen to take the constitutionality of the War Powers Act before a court.

Historical precedent since the War Power Act was passed is that a President does have the authority to conduct airstrikes or commit troops for up to 60 days before it has to go to Congress.

[L. Coyote]

12. Everybody but Congress got a phone call and a press release. Plus, now #TrumpRussia never happened.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet