View source for War Powers Resolution

{{Short description|1973 U.S. federal law (50 U.S.C. 1541-48)}}
{{Use American English|date=December 2021}}
{{use mdy dates|date=September 2016}}                                              
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| name = War Powers Resolution
| fullname = Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
| acronym =
| nickname =
| enacted by = 93rd
| effective date = November 7, 1973
| public law url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg555.pdf
| cite public law = 93-148
| cite statutes at large = {{USStat|87|555}}
| acts amended =
| title amended =
| sections created =
| sections amended =
| leghisturl = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d093:HJ00542:@@@S
| introducedin = House
| introducedbill = {{USBill|93|hjres|542}}
| introducedby = [[Clement J. Zablocki]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-[[Wisconsin|WI]])
| introduceddate = May 3, 1973
| committees = [[United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs|House Foreign Affairs]]
| passedbody1 = House
| passeddate1 = July 18, 1973
| passedvote1 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1973/h249 244–170]
| passedbody2 = Senate
| passeddate2 = July 20, 1973
| passedvote2 = 75–20
| conferencedate = October 4, 1973
| passedbody3 = Senate
| passeddate3 = October 10, 1973
| passedvote3 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1973/s451 75–20]
| passedbody4 = House
| passeddate4 = October 12, 1973
| passedvote4 = [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1973/h382 238–122]
| vetoedpresident = [[Richard Nixon]]
| vetoeddate= October 24, 1973
| overriddenbody1 = House
| overriddendate1 = November 7, 1973
| overriddenvote1 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1973/h412 284–135]
| overriddenbody2 = Senate
| overriddendate2 = November 7, 1973
| overriddenvote2 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1973/s462 75–18]
| amendments =
| SCOTUS cases =
}}
{{U.S. Congressional opposition to war}}

The '''War Powers Resolution''' (also known as the '''War Powers Resolution of 1973''' or the '''War Powers Act''') ({{usctc|50|33}}) is a [[Law of the United States|federal law]] intended to check the [[U.S. president]]'s power to commit the United States to an [[armed conflict]] without the consent of the [[United States Congress|U.S. Congress]]. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional [[joint resolution]]. It provides that the [[President of the United States|president]] can send the [[United States Armed Forces|U.S. Armed Forces]] into action abroad by [[United States Congress|Congress]], "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

The bill was introduced by [[Clement Zablocki]], a Democratic congressman representing Wisconsin's 4th district. The bill had bipartisan support and was co-sponsored by a number of U.S. military veterans.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Shibboleth Authentication Request |url=https://login.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/login?qurl=https://li.proquest.com%2flegislativeinsight%2fdocview%3fid%3d93%2520H.J.Res.%2520542%26p%3d1929C12230D%26uid%3d1077 |access-date=2024-11-16 |website=login.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu}}</ref> The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the [[Veto#United States|veto]] of President [[Richard Nixon]].

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past. However, Congress has disapproved all such incidents, and no allegations have resulted in successful legal actions taken against a president.<ref name="Library of Congress War Powers Reference">{{cite web |url= https://www.loc.gov/item/2019670446/ |title= War Powers – Law Library of Congress – Library of Congress |website= [[Library of Congress]] |date= 2007 |author= Global Legal Research Directorate }}</ref>

==Constitutional background==
Under the [[United States Constitution]], war powers are divided. Under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Article I, Section 8]], Congress has the power to:
* [[declare war]]
* grant [[Letters of Marque and Reprisal]] (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
* raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
* provide and maintain a Navy
* make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
* provide for calling forth the [[Militia (United States)|Militia]]
* make [[Prize (law)|Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water]]
* provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
* govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the [[U.S. State|states]] have the power to:
* Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
* train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

[[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Presidential powers|Article II, Section 2]] provides that:
* "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States<ref name="ReferenceA">The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318–19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966)(1911)</ref><ref name="justice.gov">[https://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081215114422/http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm|date=December 15, 2008}}</ref> and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress, and require a super-majority for legislative action that is contrary to the wishes of the president. Past presidential administrations have engaged the U.S. in conflict as well as directed U.S. military efforts without the approval of Congress. President Franklin Roosevelt directed the U.S. Navy to protect British shipping vessels during WW2 as well as ordering the occupation of Greenland and Iceland.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Vance |first=Cyrus R. |date=December 1984 |title=Striking the Balance: Congress and the President under the War Powers Resolution |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3311864 |journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review |volume=133 |issue=1 |pages=79–95 |doi=10.2307/3311864|jstor=3311864 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

==History==

===Background and passage===

During the [[Vietnam War]], the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. It was prompted by news leaking out that President Nixon conducted [[Operation Menu|secret bombings of Cambodia]] during the Vietnam War without notifying Congress.<ref name=HistoryChannel>{{cite web|url=https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/vietnam-war/war-powers-act|title=War Powers Act|date=30 November 2017}}</ref> The War Powers Resolution bill was a contest between Congress and the Presidency on who has specific rights regarding wartime authorities. According to the committee report "The issue concerns the 'twilight zone' of concurrent authority which the Founding Fathers gave the Congress and the President over the war powers of the National Government."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Shibboleth Authentication Request |url=https://login.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/login?qurl=https://li.proquest.com%2flegislativeinsight%2fdocview%3fid%3dHRG-1973-FOA-0039%26p%3d1929C02FC6C%26uid%3d1005 |access-date=2024-11-16 |website=login.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu}}</ref>

President Nixon's opposition to the bill was noted by Representative [[Gerald Ford|Gerald R. Ford]], who read aloud a telegram from the President in which Nixon warned he would veto the legislation due to its "dangerous and unconstitutional restrictions".<ref>{{Cite web|author=Richard L. Madden|newspaper=The New York Times| date=19 July 1973 |title=House Passes Bill to Curb President's War Powers: House Passes Bill to Restrict President's Powers to Commit Troops to War |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/119841442 |access-date=2024-11-16 |id={{ProQuest|119841442}} |language=en}}</ref> The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and [[United States Senate|Senate]] but was vetoed by President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref name=ConCenter>{{cite web| url=https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/when-congress-once-used-its-powers-to-declare-war|title=When Congress last used its powers to declare war|date=8 December 2018|access-date=15 October 2019}}</ref><ref name=HistoryChannel /> By a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress [[Veto override|overrode]] the veto and enacted the joint resolution into law on November 7, 1973.<ref name=ConCenter />

=== Provisions ===
In the absence of a declaration of war by the Congress, in any case in which the Armed Forces of the United States are introduced in hostilities,  or in situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, such use of the Armed Forces of the United States in hostilities pursuant to this Act shall be reported within 48 hours in writing by the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the  President pro tempore of the Senate, together with a full account of the circumstances under which such  hostilities were initiated, the estimated scope and duration of such hostilities, and the constitutional  and legislative authority under which the introduction of hostilities took place.

The President is to routinely consult with Congress until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed. Reports are given to the House Committee of Foreign Affairs and to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.<ref>{{Cite web |title=H.J.Res.542 – Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President. | date=November 7, 1973 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-joint-resolution/542}}</ref>

===Implementation, 1993–2002===
With the War Powers Resolution's passing, both the deployment of troops to conflict and the stationing of troops past 60 days would now need prior congressional approval. The president would now need to routinely consult with Congress for the duration of the conflict.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fisher |first1=Louis |last2=Adler |first2=David Gray |date=1998-03-01 |title=The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye |url=https://academic.oup.com/psq/article/113/1/1/6945507 |journal=Political Science Quarterly |language=en |volume=113 |issue=1 |pages=1–20 |doi=10.2307/2657648 |jstor=2657648 |issn=0032-3195|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The resolution is considered to be a critically important bill in reestablishing congressional capabilities.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye |url=https://academic.oup.com/psq/article-abstract/113/1/1/6945507?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false |access-date=2024-11-16 |journal=Political Science Quarterly| date=March 1998 | volume=113 | issue=1 | pages=1–20 | doi=10.2307/2657648 | jstor=2657648 | last1=Fisher | first1=Louis | last2=Adler | first2=David Gray | url-access=subscription }}</ref> As of 2011, presidents have submitted 130<ref name="ReferenceB">U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance. Washington: The Service, 2011 (RL33532), Summary.</ref> {{Update inline|date=October 2025|reason=Way out of date. Unsure what the best source for this would be. Perhaps the War Powers Resolution Reporting Project. This 130 figure seems to include both 48 hour and periodic reports}} reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution.

Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the [[Multinational Force in Lebanon]] Act (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the [[United States Marine Corps|Marines]] to remain in [[Lebanese Civil War|Lebanon]] for 18 months during 1982 and 1983. In addition, the [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991]] ({{USPL|102|1}}), which authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi forces during the 1991 [[Gulf War]], stated that it constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

The Reagan Administration harbored extensive reservations about the War Powers Resolution's constitutionality and efficacy. Legal Advisor to the State Department Abraham Sofaer argued that the WPR's deadlines "creates unwise limitations on Presidential authority to deploy U.S. forces in the interests of U.S. national security" and that "the President's constitutional authority cannot in any case even be impermissibly infringed by statute."<ref>{{Cite report 
 |author=U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Security and Science of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
 |title=War Powers, Libya, and State-Sponsored Terrorism: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Security and Science of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
 |date=1986 
 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office 
 |location=Washington, D.C. 
 |pages=5–60, 230–240 
}} 
</ref> More specifically, the Administration sought to make clear that the resolution should not be applied to anti-terrorist operations, a use of force, according to Sofaer, "that is more analogous to law enforcement activity by policy in the domestic context than it is to the 'hostilities' between states."<ref>Ibid., p. 230–240.</ref>

On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from [[History of Somalia#Somali Civil War|Somalia]] by March 31, 1994;{{citation needed|date=June 2019}} Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently, under [[Bill Clinton|President Clinton]], war powers were at issue in [[Yugoslav Wars|former Yugoslavia]], [[Bosnian War|Bosnia]], [[Kosovo War|Kosovo]], [[Bombing of Iraq (December 1998)|Iraq]], and [[Operation Uphold Democracy|Haiti]], and under President [[George W. Bush]] in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after [[September 11 attacks|September 11, 2001]]. "[I]n 1999, President Clinton kept the [[1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia|bombing campaign in Kosovo]] going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."<ref name="thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com">[[Charlie Savage (author)|Savage, Charlie]] (2011-04-01) [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/clock-ticking-on-war-powers-resolution/ Clock Ticking on War Powers Resolution], ''[[The New York Times]]'' The Caucus Blog</ref> Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case ''[[Campbell v. Clinton]]'', but the court found the issue was a [[Justiciability|non-justiciable]] [[political question]].<ref>{{Citation|title=Campbell v. Clinton|date=February 18, 2000|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2803714193388437750&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr|volume=203|pages=19|access-date=2017-02-23}}</ref> It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90-day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.<ref name="online.wsj.com">[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323932604579049933342339844 How War Powers, Congressional Action have Intersected Over Time] ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' (2013-09-02)</ref>

After the 1991 [[Gulf War]], the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with [[United Nations]] resolutions, particularly through enforcement of [[Iraqi no-fly zones]], remained a war powers issue. In October 2002 Congress enacted the [[Iraq Resolution|Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq]] {{USStatute|107|243}}, which authorized President [[George W. Bush]] to use force as necessary to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.<ref name="PL107-243">{{USPL|107|243}}</ref> This was in addition to the [[Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001]].

===Libya, 2011===
{{See also|2011 military intervention in Libya}}
Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] testified to congress in March 2011 that the Obama administration did not need [[Declaration of war by the United States|congressional authorization]] for its [[2011 military intervention in Libya|military intervention in Libya]] or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/30/congress.libya.briefing/ |title=Congress members grill administration officials on Libya mission |publisher=CNN |date=March 31, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/87124-white-house-briefing-changes-few-minds-on-libya-involvement/ |title=White House briefing changes few minds on Libya involvement |work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |author=Lillis, Mike |date=March 30, 2011|display-authors=etal}}</ref>  During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution's provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/clinton-to-congress-obama-would-ignore-your-war-resolutions?ref=fpblg |title=Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions |publisher=Talking Points Memo |author=Crabtree, Susan |date=March 30, 2011}}</ref>  Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the [[sorties]], and the ''[[New York Times]]'' reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions – a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://web.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/middleeast/26powers.html |title=Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act |work=The New York Times |author=Charlie Savage |date=May 26, 2011 |page=A8 }}{{Dead link|date=June 2021 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html |title=2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate |work=The New York Times |last=Savage |first=Charlie |date=June 18, 2011 |page=A1 |url-access=limited}}</ref> The State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no "hostility" in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and the [[Office of Legal Counsel|Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/president-overruled-2-key-lawyers-on-debate-over-libya-war-policy/ |title=President overruled 2 key lawyers on debate over Libya war policy |author=Savage, Charlie |date=June 18, 2011 |work=The Seattle Times}}</ref><ref name=Cosgrove>Cosgrove, Maureen [http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/06/state-department-legal-adviser-obama-acting-lawfully-in-libya.php "State Department legal adviser: Obama acting lawfully in Libya"], [[JURIST]] (June 28, 2011).</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Defining War in an Ill-Defined World|first1=Nikolas|last1=Gvosdev|first2=Andrew|last2=Stigler|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/opinion/29iht-edgvosdev29.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 28, 2011|department=Opinion|access-date=February 13, 2020|url-access=limited}}</ref>

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of [[Operation Odyssey Dawn|US combat in Libya]] (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.<ref name="Libya War Deadline Arrives">[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawmakers-demand-explanation-from-white-house-as-libya-war-deadline-arrives Libya War Deadline Arrives] Fox News</ref> President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,<ref name="blogs.abcnews.com">[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html "White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization"], ABC News, May 20, 2011 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170916220714/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html |date=September 16, 2017 }}</ref> since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO,<ref name="BBC News">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12876696|publisher=BBC News|title=Libya: Nato assumes control of military operation|date=March 27, 2011}}</ref> and since US involvement was somewhat "limited". In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html |title=Libya Fact Sheet &#124; NATO – United States Mission |access-date=2015-10-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151005100331/http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html |archive-date=October 5, 2015 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> By September, the US had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html |title=Remarks to the Press on Libya and Operation Unified Protector &#124; United States Mission to NATO |access-date=2015-10-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016025619/http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html |archive-date=October 16, 2015 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.<ref name=Cosgrove /><ref>{{Cite book |author=Owen, Robert |title=Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War |editor=Karl Mueller |page=105|publisher=Rand Corporation |year=2015 |chapter=The U.S. Experience: National Strategy and Campaign Support|isbn=9780833088079 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7RFDCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT105}}</ref>

On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.<ref name="washingtontimes.com">Dinan, Stephen, [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/bipartisan-congress-rebuffs-obama-libya-mission/ "Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission"]. ''The Washington Times'', Saturday, June 4, 2011</ref><ref name="Steinhauer">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/world/africa/04policy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all|work=The New York Times|first=Jennifer|last=Steinhauer|title=House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent|date=June 3, 2011}}</ref>  [[Yale Law School|Yale]] Law Professor [[Bruce Ackerman]] stated that Obama's position "lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years."<ref>Ackerman, Bruce. [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html?_r=0 "Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War"], ''[[The New York Times]]'' (June 21, 2011). Page A27.</ref>

===Syria, 2012–2017===
{{See also|2017 Shayrat missile strike|Syrian Train and Equip Program|Timber Sycamore}}
In late 2012 or early 2013, at the direction of U.S. President [[Barack Obama]], the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] (CIA) was put in charge of [[Timber Sycamore]], a covert program to arm and train the rebels who were fighting against [[Syria]]n [[President of Syria|President]] [[Bashar al-Assad]],<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-give-some-syria-rebels-ability-to-call-airstrikes-1424208053 |title=U.S. to Give Some Syria Rebels Ability to Call Airstrikes |work= The Wall Street Journal |date=February 17, 2015 |access-date=February 17, 2015 |last1=Barnes|first1=Julian E. |last2=Entous |first2=Adam |url-access=subscription}}</ref> while the State Department supplied the [[Free Syrian Army]] with non-lethal aid. Following the [[use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War]] on several occasions, including the [[Ghouta chemical attack]] on 21 August 2013, Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military force in Syria, which Congress rejected. Instead, Congress passed a bill that specified that the Defense Secretary was authorized "...to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals...." The bill specifically prohibited the introduction of U.S. troops or other U.S. forces into hostilities. The bill said: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances."<ref>{{USPL|113|164}}</ref>

In spite of the prohibition, Obama, and later U.S. President [[Donald Trump]], introduced ground forces into Syria, and the United States became fully engaged in the country, though these troops were primarily for training allied forces. On April 6, 2017, the United States launched 59 [[Tomahawk (missile family)|BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles]] at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor [[Stephen Vladeck]] has noted that the strike potentially violated the War Powers Resolution.<ref>{{cite news|title=Was Trump's Syria Strike Legal? An Expert Weighs In|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/was-trump-syria-strike-legal/|access-date=7 April 2017}}</ref>

===Yemen, 2018–2019===
{{See also|Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen|assassination of Jamal Khashoggi}}
In 2018, Senators [[Bernie Sanders]] (I–[[List of United States Senators from Vermont|VT]]), [[Chris Murphy]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[List of United States Senators from Connecticut|CT]]), and [[Mike Lee]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]–[[List of United States Senators from Utah|UT]]) sponsored a bill to invoke the War Powers Resolution and to end U.S. support for the [[Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen|Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen]],<ref name="NBC" /> which has resulted in thousands of civilian casualties<ref name="NBC">{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/after-inadequate-briefing-saudi-arabia-senate-advances-bill-end-u-n941386|title=Senate advances bill to end U.S. involvement in Yemen war after 'inadequate' briefing on Saudi Arabia|last=Caldwell|first=Leigh Ann|date=November 28, 2018|work=[[NBC News]]|access-date=January 1, 2019}}</ref> and "millions more suffering from starvation and disease."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/2018/11/28/18116442/yemen-war-powers-senate-vote-sanders|title=The Senate is moving closer to ending US support for the war in Yemen|last=Ward|first=Alex|date=November 28, 2018|work=[[Vox (website)|Vox]]|access-date=January 1, 2019}}</ref>

Sanders first introduced the bill in the [[115th United States Congress|115th Congress]] in February 2018, but the Senate voted to table the motion in March 2018.<ref>{{USBill|115|sj|54}}</ref> Interest grew in the bill after the [[assassination of Jamal Khashoggi]] in October 2018, with the Senate also approving a resolution holding Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman responsible for Khashoggi's death.<ref name="Hirschfeld">{{cite news|first1=Julie|last1=Hirschfeld Davis|first2=Eric|last2=Schmitt|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/yemen-saudi-war-pompeo-mattis.html|title=Senate Votes to End Aid for Yemen Fight Over Khashoggi Killing and Saudis' War Aims|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=December 13, 2018|access-date=December 18, 2018|url-access=limited}}</ref> The Senate voted 56-to-41 to invoke the War Powers Resolution in December 2018.<ref name="Hirschfeld" /> However, the House of Representatives did not vote on the resolution before the conclusion of the 115th Congress.<ref name="Politico">{{cite web |last1=Levin |first1=Marianne |title=Senate set to again admonish Trump over Yemen on Wednesday |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/12/senate-vote-yemen-1218478 |website=politico.com |publisher=Politico |access-date=13 March 2019 |date=12 March 2019}}</ref>

The bill was introduced in the [[116th United States Congress|116th Congress]] in January 2019<ref>{{USBill|116|sj|7}}</ref> with Sanders announcing a vote to take place on March 13, 2019.<ref name="Politico" /> The bill was approved by the Senate in a 54–46 vote and was approved by the House of Representatives 247–175.<ref>{{cite news |title=Senate votes to end US support of Saudi-led Yemen war |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47564274 |date=14 March 2019 |access-date=14 March 2019 |work=BBC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/house-passes-yemen-war-powers-resolution/|title=House sends Yemen War Powers Resolution to Trump, where it faces veto threat|date=4 April 2019|access-date=4 April 2019|work=[[CNN]]|last1=Killough|first1=Ashley|last2=Barrett|first2=Ted}}</ref>

The bill was vetoed by President Trump on April 16, 2019. On May 2, 2019, the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority vote in order to override the veto.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://apnews.com/ea653a19d7d243a5b22b78a95940f722|first=Susannah|last=George|title=Trump's Yemen war policy survives Senate's veto override bid|date=May 2, 2019|access-date=February 13, 2020|work=AP News}}</ref>

===Iran, 2020===
 <!-- linked from redirect [[Iran War Powers Resolution]] -->
{{See also|Assassination of Qasem Soleimani}}
On January 4, 2020, the [[Executive Office of the President of the United States|White House]] officially notified Congress that it had carried out a fatal drone strike against Iranian General [[Qasem Soleimani]] a day earlier. House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] said that the entire document was classified and that it "raises more questions than it answers." Senate Majority Leader [[Mitch McConnell]] said he would set up a classified briefing for all senators.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/476795-white-house-formally-notifies-congress-of-soleimani-strike/|title=White House sends Congress formal notification of Soleimani strike|first=Rachel|last=Frazin|work=The Hill|date=January 4, 2020|access-date=February 13, 2020}}</ref>

Senator [[Tim Kaine]] (D–VA) had already introduced a resolution to prevent the U.S. Armed Forces or any part of the government to use hostilities against Iran.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sen-kaine-introduces-war-powers-resolution-iran-conflict|title=Sen. Kaine Introduces War Powers Resolution on Iran Conflict|first=Jacob|last=Schulz|website=Lawfare|date=January 3, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.newsweek.com/sen-tim-kaine-introduces-resolution-stop-war-iran-ive-been-deeply-concerned-about-president-1480361|title=Sen. Tim Kaine Introduces Resolution to Stop War with Iran: 'I've Been Deeply Concerned about President Trump Stumbling into a War'|first=Melissa|last=Lemieux|work=Newsweek|date=January 3, 2020|access-date=February 13, 2020}}</ref> Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] (I–VT) and Representative [[Ro Khanna]] (D–CA) introduced an anti-funding resolution, also on January 3.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thehill.com/policy/defense/476738-sanders-khanna-introduce-legislation-to-block-funding-for-a-war-with-iran/|title=Sanders, Khanna introduce legislation to block funding for a war with Iran|first=Tal|last=Axelrod|work=The Hill|date=January 3, 2020}}</ref>

The Trump administration stated that the attack on Qasem Soleimani was carried out in accordance with the War Powers Resolution under the [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002|Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution of 2002]]. The legalities of using the AUMF for endless conflicts has been a source of debate.

On February 13, 2020, the Senate passed a similar legally-binding privileged resolution by a vote of 55–45. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed it March 11, 2020. Trump vetoed the resolution on May 6, 2020, stating that it mistakenly "implies that the president's constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack." Kaine stated Trump's veto could enable "endless wars" and "unnecessary war in the Middle East".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Crowley |first1=Michael |title=Trump Vetoes Measure Demanding Congressional Approval for Iran Conflict |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/us/politics/trump-vetoes-iran-war-powers.html |access-date=10 May 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=6 May 2020}}</ref> The Senate attempted to override the veto the following day. The attempt need at least 67 votes to override, with it failing by a vote of 49–44.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-congress/u-s-senate-upholds-trump-veto-of-insulting-iran-war-powers-resolution-idUSKBN22J30A U.S. Senate upholds Trump veto of 'insulting' Iran war powers resolution] [[Reuters]]</ref>

=== Iran, 2025 ===
{{See also|Iran–Israel War}}
Following escalating threats against Iran from the [[second Trump administration]], [[Ro Khanna]] and [[Thomas Massie]] in the House and [[Tim Kaine]] in the Senate introduced resolutions to require congressional authorization to engage the [[United States Military]] against Iran.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Jimison |first=Robert |date=2025-06-17 |title=War Powers Debate Revived in Congress as Trump Threatens Iran |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/world/middleeast/trump-war-powers-iran-congress.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250617201157/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/world/middleeast/trump-war-powers-iran-congress.html |archive-date=17 June 2025 |work=[[The New York Times]] |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the 'No War Against Iran Act' prohibiting "the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran absent specific Congressional authorization." Co-sponsors included Democratic Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Tina Smith of Minnesota.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-aim-stop-us-joining-israels-military-campaign/story?id=122930758| author=Alex Ederson| title=Lawmakers aim to stop U.S. from joining Israel's military campaign against Iran| publisher=ABC News| date=June 17, 2025}}</ref>

=== Caribbean, 2025 ===
{{See also|2025 US Caribbean naval deployment}}
In the House, Representative [[Ilhan Omar]] sponsored  a resolution which was cosponsored by Representatives [[Joaquin Castro|Castro]], [[Greg Casar|Casar]], [[Chuy García|García]], [[Yassamin Ansari|Ansari]], [[Jim McGovern (American politician)|McGovern]], [[Tlaib]], [[Don Beyer|Beyer]], [[Ocasio-Cortez]], [[Val Hoyle|Hoyle]], and [[Nydia Velázquez|Velázquez]].<ref>{{cite web |title=H.Con.Res. 51: To direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress. |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hconres51 |website=[[GovTrack]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |title=Rep. Ilhan Omar, CPC Leaders, Introduce War Powers Resolution to End Unauthorized Hostilities in Venezuela {{!}} Representative Ilhan Omar |url=https://omar.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ilhan-omar-cpc-leaders-introduce-war-powers-resolution-end-unauthorized |website=omar.house.gov |language=en |date=24 September 2025}}</ref> Separately, Representative [[Jason Crow]] sponsored a similar resolution.<ref>{{cite press release |title=H.J.Res. 126: A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress. |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hjres126 |website=[[GovTrack]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Crow Leads Resolution to Stop Unauthorized U.S. Military Strikes {{!}} Representative Jason Crow |url=https://crow.house.gov/media/press-releases/crow-leads-resolution-to-stop-unauthorized-us-military-strikes |website=crow.house.gov |language=en |date=26 September 2025}}</ref> In the Senate, Senator [[Adam Schiff]] sponsored a resolution which was cosponsored by Senator [[Tim Kaine|Kaine]], [[Tammy Duckworth|Duckworth]], [[Jeff Merkley|Merkley]], [[Rand Paul|Paul]], [[Chris Van Hollen|Van Hollen]], [[Bernie Sanders|Sanders]], [[Ron Wyden|Wyden]], and [[Alex Padilla|Padilla]].<ref>{{cite web |title=S.J.Res. 83: A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress. |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/sjres83 |website=[[GovTrack]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |title=NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Kaine to Force Vote Blocking Unauthorized Boat Strikes in Caribbean |url=https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-kaine-to-force-vote-blocking-unauthorized-boat-strikes-in-caribbean/ |website=schiff.senate.gov |date=September 19, 2025}}</ref>

==Questions regarding constitutionality==
{{See also|Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|War Powers Clause}}
The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2140_v88/ai_6876296 |title=The war powers resolution |publisher=US Department of State Bulletin |date=1988-09-15 |access-date=2008-07-09}} "The War Powers Resolution has been controversial from the day it was adopted over President Nixon's veto. Since 1973, executive officials and many Members of Congress have criticized various aspects of the law repeatedly."</ref> In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] for its authority.<ref>War Powers Joint Resolution, §2(b).</ref> Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the ''Government of the United States'', or in ''any department or officer'' thereof.

There is controversy over whether the War Powers Resolution's constraints on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief are consistent with the Constitution.<ref>Rushkoff, Bennett C. "A Defense of the War Powers Resolution." Yale Law Journal 93, no. 7 (June 1984): 1333–35.[http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/16288]</ref> Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33532.html |title=War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance |date=2012-09-25 |access-date=2021-02-18}}</ref>

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by [[Philip Bobbitt]]<ref>"War Powers: An Essay on [[John Hart Ely]]'s ''War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath''," ''Michigan Law Quarterly'' 92, no. 6 (May 1994): 1364–1400.</ref> argues "The power to make war is not an [[enumerated power]]" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception". Bobbitt contends that the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Framers]] of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only [[total war]]s, as shown by the history of the [[Quasi-War]] with France (1798–1800). In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the President commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized.{{clarify|date=March 2015}} Bobbitt also argues that "A democracy cannot ... tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimacy]] of governmental action.

A second argument concerns a possible breach of the "separation of powers" doctrine, and whether the resolution changes the balance between the Legislative and Executive functions.
This type of constitutional controversy is similar to one that occurred under President [[Andrew Johnson]] with the [[Tenure of Office Act (1867)]]. In that prior instance, the Congress passed a law (over the veto of the President) that required the President to secure Congressional approval for the removal of Cabinet members and other executive branch officers. The Act was not declared unconstitutional by the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court of the United States]] until 1926.<ref>{{cite web |title=Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926)|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/272/52/case.html}}</ref> When Andrew Johnson violated the Act, the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] [[Impeachment of Andrew Johnson|impeached]] him; action in the Senate to remove him [[Impeachment of Andrew Johnson|failed by one vote]] during [[Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson|his impeachment trial]].

Here, the separation of powers issue is whether the War Powers Resolution requirements for Congressional approval and presidential reporting to Congress change the constitutional balance established in Articles I and II, namely that Congress is explicitly granted the sole authority to "declare war", "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (Article 1, Section 8), and to control the funding of those same forces, while the Executive has inherent authority as Commander in Chief. This argument does not address the other reporting requirements imposed on other executive officials and agencies by other statutes, nor does it address the provisions of Article I, Section 8 that explicitly gives Congress the authority to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".

The constitution specifically states that Congress is authorized "to provide and maintain a Navy" (Article 1 Section 8). The idea of "maintenance" of a Navy implies that Naval Forces would be a permanent fixture of national defense. Two types of Land Forces are described by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8): the Militia (armed citizenry organized into local defense forces and state volunteer regiments) which Congress can "call forth" and prescribe the "organizing, arming, and disciplining [training]" of, as Congress did in the Militia acts of 1792; and the Army, which Congress can "raise and support", through regular appropriation acts limited to no more than two years. This division matches how the [[American Revolutionary War|Revolutionary War]] was fought, by the [[Continental Army]], raised and supported by the [[Continental Congress]], and local Militias and Volunteer Regiments, raised by the separate Colonies. After the war, under the Articles of Confederation, a small standing Army, the [[First American Regiment]] was raised and gradually increased in size over time by Congress before, following the Constitution's ratification, being transformed into the [[Regular Army (United States)|Regular Army]]. The availability of a standing Army, and the President of the United States being authorized as "Commander in Chief", implies his ability as a military commander to employ forces necessary to fulfill his oath to defend the constitution.

There is also an unresolved legal question, discussed by [[Byron Raymond White|Justice Byron R. White]] in ''[[Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha|INS v. Chadha]]'' of whether a "key provision of the War Powers Resolution", namely [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1544- 50 U.S.C. 1544(c)], constitutes an improper legislative veto. (See ''Chadha'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=462&invol=919 462 U.S. 919, 971].) That section 1544(c) states "such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution". Justice White argues in his dissent in ''Chadha'' that, under the ''Chadha'' ruling, 1544(c) would be a violation of the [[Presentment Clause]]. The majority in ''Chadha'' does not resolve the issue. Justice White does not address or evaluate in his dissent whether that section would fall within the inherent Congressional authority under Article I Section 8 to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.launchknowledge.com/constitution/|title=The Constitution of the United States – We the People – an easy to read and use version|website=launchknowledge.com|date=September 10, 2020|language=en-us}}</ref><!--(disputed see talk)--> A post-''Chadha'' argument for the constitutionality of the concurrent resolution is that the War Powers Resolution does not delegate legislative authority to the President, and that the ''Chadha'' ruling applies only when Congress seeks to revoke a delegation of its authority.<ref>Rushkoff, Bennett C. "A Defense of the War Powers Resolution." Yale Law Journal 93, no. 7 (June 1984): 1349–50.[http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/16288]</ref>

A hearing was held before the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, on June 6, 2018, on war powers and the effects of unauthorized military engagements on federal spending. The witnesses giving testimony before the subcommittee were law professors [[Andrew Napolitano]] and [[Jonathan Turley]], and Christopher Anders of the [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management |title=War Powers and the Effects of Unauthorized Military Engagements on Federal Spending: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, June 6, 2018 |date=2019 |publisher=U.S. Government Publishing Office |location=Washington, DC |url=https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo115704 |access-date=7 February 2019}}</ref>

==References==
<!-- Please do not add a scrollbox around this reference list. They are not allowed per the following discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_11#Template:Scrollref -->
{{reflist|30em}}

==Sources==
* {{cite web
 |last=Grimmett
 |first=Richard Z.
 |date=February 14, 2006  |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33532.pdf
 |title=CRS Report for Congress: War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
 |publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]]
 |access-date=2007-09-30
}}
* {{cite web
 |author=United States Congress
 |date=November 7, 1973
 |url=http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm
 |title=War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Public Law 93-148)
 |publisher=The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
 |access-date=2007-09-30
}}
* {{cite web
 |author      = United States Congress
 |date        = October 31, 1998
 |url         = http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
 |title       = H.R.4655: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)
 |publisher   = IraqWatch.org
 |access-date  = 2007-09-30
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://swap.stanford.edu/20090630211140/http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
 |archive-date = June 30, 2009
 |df          = mdy-all
}}
* {{cite web
 |author=United States Congress
 |date=September 18, 2001
 |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107
 |title=Public Law 107-40: Joint Resolution: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States (S.J. Res. 23)
 |format=text
 |publisher=[[United States Government Printing Office]]
 |access-date=2007-09-30
}}
* {{cite web
 |author=United States Congress
 |date=October 16, 2002
 |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
 |title=Public Law 107-243: Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (H. J. Res. 114)
 |format=text
 |publisher=United States Government Printing Office
 |access-date=2007-09-30
}}
* {{cite web
 |last=Kinkopf
 |first=Neil
 |url=http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Kinkopf-Surge.pdf
 |title=The Congress as Surge Protector
 |page=2
 |publisher=American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
 |access-date=2007-09-30
 |quote=The Supreme Court has been clear and unambiguous. When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President 'no', the President must comply.
 |archive-date=July 4, 2007
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070704003655/http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Kinkopf-Surge.pdf
 |url-status=dead
 }}
* {{cite web
 |last         = Doumar
 |first        = Robert G.
 |date         = January 8, 2003
 |url          = http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338.P.pdf
 |title        = ''Hamdi v. Rumsfeld'' Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk (CA-02-439-2)
 |publisher    = United States Judiciary
 |access-date   = 2007-09-30
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20120204095544/http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338.P.pdf
 |archive-date = February 4, 2012
 |url-status     = dead
 |df           = mdy-all
}}
* {{cite web
 |last=Young
 |first=D. Lindley
 |date=February 24, 2003
 |url=http://themoderntribune.com/Amicus_CA1_DOE_v_Bush_No._03-1266.pdf
 |title=Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Appeal
 |publisher=United States Judiciary
 |access-date=2011-12-06
 |archive-date=February 4, 2012
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204193921/http://www.themoderntribune.com/Amicus_CA1_DOE_v_Bush_No._03-1266.pdf
 |url-status=usurped
 }}
* {{cite web
 |author=Library of Congress
 |date=March 12, 2012
 |url=http://loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php
 |title=Research Help: War Powers
 |format=text
 |publisher=United States Government Library of Congress
 |access-date=2012-05-04
}}

==External links==
{{Wikisource}}
* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33 50 USC chapter 33] in the [[United States Code]]
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1508/uslm/COMPS-1508.xml War Powers Resolution] as amended ([https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1508/pdf/COMPS-1508.pdf PDF]/[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-1508 details]) in the [[United States Government Publishing Office|GPO]] [https://www.govinfo.gov/help/comps Statute Compilations collection]
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/93/public/148?link-type=pdf&.pdf War Powers Resolution] as enacted ([https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/93/public/148?link-type=details details]) in the [[United States Statutes at Large|US Statutes at Large]]
* {{USBill|93|hjres|542}} on [[Congress.gov]]
* {{USBill|93|s|440}} on Congress.gov
* [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp Avalon Project – War Powers Resolution]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/RL31185.pdf The War Powers Resolution: After Twenty-Eight Years November 15, 2001 PDF]
* [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42699.pdf The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice March 28, 2017 PDF]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/waract.htm War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance September 11, 2001 HTML]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/IB81050_020108.pdf War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance January 8, 2002 PDF]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/crs_ib81050.pdf War Powers Resolution : Presidential Compliance March 16, 2004 PDF]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/ib81050.pdf War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance November 15, 2004 PDF]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20040627021135/http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32267.htm The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty Years]

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Congressional opposition to the Vietnam War]]
[[Category:United States federal defense and national security legislation]]
[[Category:1973 in American law]]
[[Category:1973 in military history]]
[[Category:Military history of the United States]]
[[Category:Nixon administration controversies]]