[ed. - I don't think I can reproduce the original discussion topic I'm responding to, as it was posted only to our online class's discussion board. But the response to it is entirely mine, and some of the context will be apparent... and I need the points.]
Ms. [name baleeted] -
I appreciate your father's and your service to our country. I am currently in the Army myself, a SGT with seven years of service. I do also appreciate your emotional stance on the issue of the War on Terror. However, I felt that I should interject at this point to correct a few misconceptions in your essay. (It was an interesting read, and I appreciate the links at the end.)
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was a law enacted by Congress, not established by the Constitution. While it does increase Congress's say in the matter of troop deployment, it is the very shifting of the President's power to the legislature in this regard that has led every President since its inception to denounce it as unconstitutional. The Constitution allows the President powers as the Commander in Chief, and it's a fair argument to state that this law certainly takes away from those powers by requiring him to seek approval from the legislature.
It has been argued by people wiser in the law than I that there is even a section of the War Powers Resolution that may have been declared unconstitutional: the "legislative veto" portion of the bill. There is, of course, the other side of the argument which is that Congress's Constitutionally granted power to declare war has been gradually eroded by such actions as the Korean and Viet Nam "wars", which were never declared as such. However, if Congress were to truly wish to eliminate this sort of behavior from the executive branch, they would have to push forward with other legislature similart to the WPR, and possibly even take their arguments to the judiciary. Our classmate David Reece brought up some excellent points about why that would be a difficult situation.
I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Callan's suit against President Bush. The Supreme Court is by no means required to hear every case that attempts an appeal to them. Nowhere in the article that you cited did it state whether the Supreme Court felt the case had no grounds or whether there was no Constitutional disagreement. I find it interesting to note that, while the other cases mentioned included members of Congress (specifically, the cases against Clinton and the "other" Bush), this case was brought by a *former* member of Congress and no current members. Callan served one term as a Democratic Representative in 1965-66, before the War Powers Resolution was enacted. His "favorite pastime is talking politics with his fellow veterans at the Elks Lodge in Odell, Nebraska." (1) I don't think that a case brought by a former member of the House of Representatives shows clearly "that Congress doesn't agree nor approve of the President's actions for taking our troops to Iraq."
Again, the War Powers Resolution is neither in or established by the Constitution, and is not an amendment, either. If Congress truly believed that the President was unequivocably unlawful in his dealings in this situation, they would formally censure him. As for the answer to your final question, I'd like to point you to the Truman Doctrine and the historical ramifications of isolationism.
(1) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0122-04.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution