National Security Law

Chapter 9 - War Powers Resolution

The War Powers Resolution

Parse each provision of the War Powers Resolution - figure out what each part means and be prepared to explain it.

What is the purpose of the Resolution?

What is Congress claiming about its right to control presidential powers?

When can the president use troops?

What is the ambiguity in #3?

What does Congress want consultation to mean?

What do presidents think it means?

What triggers reporting?

Who does the president report to?

What must the report contain?

Is this a continuing duty to report?

What does Congress do with the report?

What is the clock that the report starts ticking?

How long is it?

What is supposed to happen if Congress does not act before the clock runs out?

What does the resolution say Congress can do by concurrent resolution?

What does section 8, INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION, try to do to limit the president's actions?

How does it attempt to turn all mutual defense treaties into non-self-executing treaties?

What is the constitutional problem with this?

What treaty military actions did it leave unaffected?

Why did Nixon veto the War Powers Resolution?

Did it pass anyway?

Why did Nixon's veto undermine the original intent of the resolution?

Have any subsequent presidents agreed to be bound by it?

What did Clinton do that violated it?

Why did Nixon say it would undermine the president's ability to conduct foreign policy?

How might it encourage an enemy to keep fighting?

Why is the 60 day clock a constitutional problem?

Why is this exactly why Congress wanted it?

Why doesn't Congress want to vote on cutting off presidential action?

What was the "tanker war"?

Lowry v. Reagan, 676 F. Supp. 333 (D.D.C. 1987)

Who did the plaintiffs represent?

What did the plaintiff say was the effect of the president failing to file a report about the tanker war?

Why did the court dodge deciding if there was consequences of the president failing to file the report?

What did the court say it was waiting for?

Why is this unlikely?

Koohi v. United States, 976 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1992)

Who are the plaintiffs?

What law are the claiming under?

Why aren't they blocked by the provisions that prevent claims based on intentional actions?

Why doesn't the US claim it was a discretionary action?

What exception is the court reviewing?

What did Lowry say about the court deciding if there were hostilities going on?

What did this court say?

Why?

How can you reconcile these holdings?

Are they answering the same question?

What was the first WPR report?

Crockett v. Reagan, 558 F. Supp. 893, 901 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d, 720 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

What did the court say about whether courts should be ordering the president to pull out troops?

What are the problems with a court-ordered troop withdrawal?

What is the "free pass" theory?

Who is the Rule of Construction section aimed at?

Is this a proper role for Congress?

Is this binding on subsequent laws?

Why or why not?

Should/Could Congress revise the War Powers Resolution to make it more effective?