Will writes, via the Washington Post:
Enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, the WPR may or may not be wise. It is, however, unquestionably a law, and Barack Obama certainly is violating it. It stipulates that a president must terminate military action 60 days after initiating it (or 90, if the president “certifies” in writing an “unavoidable military necessity” respecting the safety of U.S. forces), unless Congress approves it. Congress has been supine and silent about this war, which began more than 70 days ago.Perhaps, in addition to continuing the debate about whether Obama is breaking the law, another question needs to be answered in light of how he's treated his ideological allies - Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright - as a result of his actions in Libya. Both were angry with Obama over the decision to go into Libya, as was the leader of the group the Obama Justice Department let off the legal hook in the Voting rights case - Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).
All presidents have resented the WPR but have taken care to act “consistent with” its 48-hour reporting requirement. So on March 21, two days after the administration took the nation to war in Libya, Obama notified Congress of this obvious fact, stressing that U.S. operations would be “limited in their nature, duration, and scope” in the service of a “limited and well-defined mission.” Months ago, before it metastasized into regime change, the “well-defined” mission was to protect civilians.
In his March 28 address to the nation, Obama said “the United States will play a supporting role.” But the WPR does not leave presidential warmaking utterly unrestrained if it is a “supporting role.”
Why is Obama going to the mat over Libya?
Read it all.