The War Powers Act permits a president to use military force without approval from congress

[Fiendish Thingy]

For up to 60 days.

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

The bill was introduced by Clement Zablocki, a Democratic congressman representing Wisconsin's 4th district. The bill had bipartisan support and was co-sponsored by a number of U.S. military veterans.[1] The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past. However, Congress has disapproved all such incidents, and no allegations have resulted in successful legal actions taken against a president.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Presidents have used that loophole for decades- Clinton did, Obama did too.

It might be morally wrong, but under current law, it’s not illegal. The only wobbly ground is there was no prior attack on the US or it’s armed forces, and I don’t expect any ruling against Trump on that question.

[Passages]

1. The issues I take with our Congress goes back decades.

If you want to protect democracy, create measures that disqualify felons from the presidency.

Nixon, for the good of the country, let's heal.

GW Bush, off the hook for his crimes... let's look forward.

If you want deterrence from crimes, somebody at the very top has to pay when they break the law.

[stopdiggin]

2. thank you. straight talk.

You can drive a truck a mile wide ...
(and many presidents have - on multiple occasion) Nobody is saying it's right - ethical - or makes any damned sense. But high pitched cries of 'unconstitutional', 'violation', and 'unlawful' - miss the mark both on 'legality', and the historical record all in one.

the big crime here - is that the United States has an impulsive and vindictive third grader as its commander in chief. and thank you SO much!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[vapor2]

3. Third grader?? Way too much credit there

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated!

The reality based community thanks you for your support!

[MichMan]

4. AOC and Massie say otherwise

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20422319

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Congress has had members who said otherwise for decades following unilateral attacks ordered by presidents

I recall hearings around Obama’s bombing of Libya, and great furor over Clinton’s bombing of Iraq and Kosovo, but nobody was impeached, indicted or went to prison.