Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:12:16 -0700, Charles Spitzer
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news

I suppose the case could be made that spreading freedom
"promote[s] the
common
defence". There's room for an interesting discussion on that
subject, to
be
sure. The Constitution does specify that the President is
Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his
exercise
of
that role.

except for declaring war, which congress has to do.

Had the Gulf War I ever technically ended?

It ended with a cease-fire, subsequently violated by
the US and the UK by the establishment of no-fly zones
over Iraqi territory where the cease fire agreement
guaranteed that Iraq would be allowed to fly military
aircraft. Lest the reader misunderstand, that violation
was preferable, IHMO to the alternative of allowing the
Shiites and Kurds to be slaughtered.

Of course the Congress did not DECLARE the 1991 war either.
Once the Congress authorized the use of military force in 1990
(or was it 1991 when the Congress voted?)
and in 2002 subsequent military action by President Bush and
President Bush respectively, was legal by US law.

AFAIK, the only US president to commit an apparant violation
of the War Powers Act since it was adopted, is Clinton
who never sought explicit Congressional approval in
advance of or during the extended military action in
Bosnia or Kosovo. As I recall, when the Kosovo issue
went to the courts the court decided that Congressional
approval of the military budget for any part of the
Kosovo campaign satisfied the requirements of the
War Powers Act. Just one of the many examples of
how Clinton got away with incredibly arrogant flouting
of the law with nary a peep from the press.

--

FF