which argument?
The one where I say he must report to the Congress? It is his own declaration that makes it a requirement. The same declaration that is being used to justify the military action. Now, if he does report to the Congress, the Congress can put guardrails on his actions by authorizing limited force.
Congress knows all about his “commitment of forces.” (The 48-hour requirement.) Now … if the Courts agree that he committed them “into hostilities,” he has 60 days to get the approval of Congress or withdraw those forces from the hostilities. That’s the law.
no, the courts agreeing is nowhere in the law.
and again, the idea that US planes firing missiles at boats are not in hostilities is laughable
and no again, what you summarized is not the law, it is the common misreading of the law
All laws are subject to Court adjudication.
The definition of what constitutes “into hostilities” is not in the law. That’s the debatable part I mentioned a while back. Thus the need for adjudication by the Court.
And your opinion on what it means does not matter.
this was you wasn’t it?
Courts are nowhere in it. Courts have no war powers. The Congress is the body in question.
and there is no automatic withdrawal provision based on Congressional inaction.
The President has 48hrs to inform
Then he has 60 days to report
Then the Congress has 30 days to choose to act, or to do nothing.
They may act by
declaring war
authorizing force
ordering a withdrawal
or they can do nothing and when its time for the next report, wash, rinse, repeat
not even close. Do you want the judges laughing? because that is all they do if someone bought them this stupid of an argument
Rest assured, this is headed to the Courts.
where if the courts were smart, they would say “why did you bring this here? We have no war powers.” Courts used to know their limits. In fact, the very case that is used to grant them the power of review was one where the court agreed with the plaintiff on the law but did not grant him redress because it was a political question. Instead, they threw out the law that hindered the President’s choice. If thy use the logic of Marbury on this one, they’ll throw out the WPA and tell the Congress if they don’t want to do their job, do not look for courts to do it for you.
The Court doesn’t need war powers to rule on a law.
They have zero authority to second guess the President’s decisions with regard to war powers. ZERO! They have NO ability to say “No, this is not an invasion”, , ZERO. They have NO war powers. They have no authority to substitute their judgement for the judgement of the President. ZERO. It is a matter for the Congress, not the courts. They cannot direct the executive, they cannot redefine the executives declarations, they cannot negate the Presidents determinations. The most they can do is throw out the law itself.
I can however tell you how this could end up in SCOTUS. As the final appeal in a court martial should any pilot decide that the order to blow up a boat was an unlawful order. The question then would not be about the Presidents judgement of what constitutes an invasion or hostilities, but of whether the Presidents actions needed to be authorized by the Congress. Then, the Presidents failure to inform and report as required by the WPA would come into play, but not his judgement, which cannot be second guessed by the courts. They have no war powers
They do need a case. who’s going to sue him?
The Court can review disputes between the Legislative and Administrative branches without a lawsuit. All it takes is a formal request from either. In simple terms, if Congress says the WPA was violated and the White House says it wasn’t, the Court can be asked to rule who is right.
Google AI:
"The Supreme Court settles disagreements between Congress and the President by acting as an arbiter, using judicial review to determine if executive or legislative actions are constitutional. It resolves disputes by interpreting laws and the Constitution, sometimes by striking down executive orders or laws, as seen in cases involving the President’s power to impose tariffs, as in Trump v. United States (2024) and Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025). The Court may also decline to hear cases, sometimes ruling on procedural grounds such as mootness, as with a border wall spending dispute.
"How the Supreme Court resolves these disagreements:
“Judicial review: The Court’s primary power is to review actions from both the executive and legislative branches to ensure they align with the U.S. Constitution.
Interpreting laws: The Court interprets federal laws to resolve conflicts over their meaning and application. For example, it may determine if a president has exceeded the authority granted by Congress, as seen in a recent case involving tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Setting precedents: The Court’s decisions set precedents that guide future interpretations of the Constitution and federal laws, influencing the balance of power between the branches.
Challenging executive orders: In some instances, the Court has struck down executive orders that it finds unconstitutional or in violation of existing law.
Limiting injunctions: The Court has also limited the use of certain tools, such as nationwide injunctions, which can be used to block executive or legislative policies from being implemented.”
LOL, what complete nonsense. No, that is not how it works. Nobody asks, they file suit. Who is going to sue? And what dispute is there between the Congress and the President on this matter? Has the Congress pressed for the President to follow the WPA? Have they taken any actions? Subpoenaed anyone? Have they even asked? This is not heading for any court unless the democrats take the house and Senate. And why would a court hear it then? Congress has its own remedies and courts do NOT have war powers.
That was is exactly how it works. Nobody has to sue anyone for the Court to be asked by either or both of the other two branches of government to adjudicate.
you are so wrong its not even worth this comment.
Yet you posted it. Go figure.
