A conveniently unlawful war

Argues that the US president does not have constitutional authority to wage continuing war in Iraq because Congress spoke & set limits that were then surpassed. Two statutes from which the president might reasonably infer such authority are identified: the 2002 Joint Resolution & the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. The provisions of these statutes are reviewed, asserting that, at most, it is debatable whether either provides authority to continue using force in Iraq. In this light, the War Powers Resolution's "clear statement rule," which establishes a default rule about debatability, is examined. How the president can continue to wage an unlawful war that neither Congress nor the judiciary seem willing to halt is then considered. Three doctrinal reasons why contemporary US courts decline to hear war powers cases are discussed: the political question doctrine, standing, & the doctrine of ripeness. It is concluded that all three branches of government are complicit in subverting the application of the rule of law. D. Edelman