Under the War Powers Crap, a President can spend up to three months blasting the pogies out of any country he or she wishes with no Congressional intervention. Then the forces must be withdrawn (at least for a short time, and then it can start again).
Here's the problem (aside from that "re-start" thing): What happens after the forces are withdrawn? We've just spent three months blasting the pogies out of some country, and withdrawing will not end the "war". Those hippie-intimidated members of Congress back then never thought that after said blasting, the target country might be a little perturbed. They might even want to retaliate.
In other words, the idea that the War Powers Crap will prevent a President from unilaterally "declaring war" is completely wrong on all points. A President ordering troops someplace does not legally "declare war" and a Congressionally- or legally-mandated withdrawal after such a time would not prevent or end a "war". WE WILL BE AT WAR, no matter what Congress may say. And fighting the war on the enemy's soil, with the strategic and tactical advantages gained in those three months of blasting, is far more advisable than fighting under the military, political and legal consequences of a Congressionally-mandated withdrawal.
Indeed, Congress has checks on the President's power, even as Commander-in-Chief. And rightly so. They can do two things: 1. Defund the operation; and 2. Remove the President through impeachment. These are constitutional, unlike the War Powers Crap. They are also legally and politically difficult, and rightly so. To overrule the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war--to overrule the choice of the American people for a co-equal branch of government--should be difficult, and a step not taken lightly. It should be taken ONLY when it is shown conclusively that the President (or pResident) is acting in a manner which is not only questionable or contrary to one's preferences, but rather with either an anti-American agenda (such as, say, supporting Jihadists for the purpose of furthering the pResident's closet religion) or with such utter incompetence and irresponsibility as to render the action not only risky or questionable, but fundamentally, conclusively, and irrationally dangerous to American security, or with unjustifiable compromising of the mission and force protection. Nonetheless, it does offer the needed check, without opening the way for a forced weakening of American foreign policy, or encroachment by Congress on military decisions.
Just a thought.
