> The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.

I disagree. The decision to go to war should always be slow and deliberate. I can't think of a single case where the President deciding to send troops on a whim without consulting Congress or getting their approval first ever worked out well.

▲

fragmede 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War by NATO did not have congressional approval and while it was not perfect or troops, I'd put it ever so slightly on the side of "well" vs the current debacle.

▲

mothballed 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I suppose the devil is in the details of "getting their approval" but it's worth noting Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War without seeking a declaration of war with congress.

▲

KylerAce 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's because the United States official position in the civil war was that the south was a part of the US that was in rebellion, and not a sovereign state that we were at war with.

▲

mothballed 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't see how that negates the action of sending of troops for combat. You're just arguing an excuse as to why congress wasn't sought to to declare war in this "case where the President decid[ed] to send troops." There is always some excuse for that nowadays, quite conveniently, so you're in good company.

	▲	vagrantJin 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Civil war is always an exception because of the special circumstances. Its not an act of war but a state of emergency which has it's own protocols regarding presidential powers.

▲

krapp 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That might be the one exception.