[b]MisterNathan wrote:[/b] [quote][url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/war-power-act-congress-libya_n_877736.html]Source[/url]. [quote]The White House finally made its case to Congress on why it doesn't need lawmakers' approval to forge ahead with military operations in Libya: Because we're not at war. Senior administration officials said Wednesday that the fact that the U.S. is only playing a support role in the NATO-led military effort in Libya -- that is, no U.S. troops on the ground and no potential for casualties -- and only plans to be involved for a short time means Obama doesn't need congressional authorization per the War Powers Act to proceed. "We are confident that we're operating consistent with the resolution," an administration official said on a conference call with reporters.[/quote] I feel the need to [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-fighting-20110320,0,1292435.story]relink this older story[/url].[/quote] I don't have any sources; but most "wars" that presidential action have been in have been "police actions" like Korea and Nam. They don't need Congress's approval since they're not actual "wars." the wars have been wars like WW1+2.