Reply #17: Once more for the cheap seats ... [View All]

[Mechatanketra]

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. -- War Powers Act (1973) Emphasis mine.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. -- Excerpt from the Iraq war resolution.

If the President "goes without", he's breaking the law -- he doesn't have the power to put troops in the line of fire without a direct attack to respond to, an act of Congress (such as the Iraq resolution, as seen above), or a declaration of war (which is also an act of Congress).

I realize that people whose patron politicians came down on the wrong side of the resolution want the warm fuzzy security blanket of 'knowing' it was ostensibly a figurehead gesture akin to the resolution that censured the Pledge of Allegiance court decision -- but it's not. That bill really did give Bush a power/authority he didn't wield before the vote, and he couldn't have legally invaded Iraq without it.