What's your point? That it might be unconstitutional is never in doubt. Those arguements are all good ones to bring before the Supreme Court if ever a President were to be impeached for violating it. But as it stands right now it is law, which you seem to dispute. I'm asking for evidence that (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548), otherwise known as The War Powers Resolution of 1973 isn't considered the law as you imply.

The President should've had a Finding that War Powers Resolution isn't applicable to Treaty responsibilities not led by the US. It's basically what he told Congress, but he didn't make it official.

*checks thread title...checks last few pages of posts...checks banhammer....

*sigh* do you know nothing of American civics? We had impeachment proceeding back in teh 1990s, I have spelled it out here, and it is writ large in the constitution itself:
THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN IMPEACHMENTS
which is why they *will never* rule on the constitutionality of the resolution, have already, in effect, declared it to be an extra-legal resolution by the legislature, in that it's scope does not fall within the legal purvue of the courts.
It is one of the limits of the court in the ballance of powers in our constitution- they cannot touch the president for anything he does in office. Therefore any resolution passed by congress to limit the powers of the presidency are not laws- and for the courts to have anything to say about it it would have to be a constitutional amendment.

Start a new thread then if you wish.