White House Won't Say if War Powers Resolution is Constitutional

e are not making a judgment on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act with this reasoning: We are simply stating that the War Powers Resolution does not need to be involved because the hostilities clause of that resolution," Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, "is not met."

The constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution has been in question since it was first passed in 1973. The charge that it overstepped the authority of the commander-in-chief was the very reason President Richard Nixon vetoed it (before a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate overturned the veto).

In fact, every president since Nixon has taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. But those same administrations have also abided by it, working within the act's framework to avoid a battle with congressional leaders.

Mr. Obama has chosen not to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors. Instead, he is choosing to take another route and say it doesn't even apply to the mission in Libya. The reasoning behind that decision is up for debate.

And so is the legal argument over whether or not this conflict is covered by the War Powers.

"For me to get up and tell you that by some miracle, every lawyer in this administration was in agreement on that issue, you wouldn't believe me, because it's simply been too contentious for now 38 years," Carney said. "