The President sent a letter to Congress today asking for a resolution of support of US military action in Libya. The letter came on the sixtieth day after the launch of the mission. The War Powers Act allows a President to engage in military action for 60 days without the express authorization of Congress, but only if the enemy represents an imminent threat to the United States, which Libya does not. The White House has used the War Powers Act as a basis for their actions in Libya.

Today marks the 60th day of US operations in Libya. Under the War Powers resolution, this should trigger a Congressional authorization for the war. The idea that the President could unilaterally attack in Libya, a country that did not threaten the United States, is dubious in its own right. But the War Powers resolution is pretty clear that after the 60-day period, the executive must come to Congress.

You can argue whether or not Congress should have warmaking powers over the executive, but you cannot argue about the Constitutional origin, nor can you argue about how Congress has basically left the playing field on war powers for decades now. This is how you have the United States end up in wars that have no end in sight, and then double down and escalate forces in response. Congress could respond by staking out powers for itself, but they have proven to be woefully craven in that respect.

Antiwar Rep. John Conyers plans to try to attach an amendment to the continuing resolution that should emerge next week in the House which would “prevent appropriated funds from being used to fund any type of ground troop presence on Libyan territory,” according to a letter sent to colleagues. Conyers has three co-sponsors – California Reps. Pete Stark, Mike Honda and Lynn Woolsey – for the amendment at the outset.

The debate over whether to arm rebels in Libya still rages, although given that we have CIA operatives on the ground coordinating air strikes and a secret finding authorizing the President to provide covert support, including arms shipments, it seems like something of a red herring. But for what it’s worth, it’s incredibly unpopular. We knew that House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (who would statutorily have to be consulted and give his assent even in a covert shipment, though that never stopped Ronald Reagan) was against it, and he mentions to Foreign Policy that the Obama cabinet was split on the notion. More important, Turkey, the only majority-Muslim member of NATO, is against it.

Now that the mission in Libya is creeping away from humanitarian protection and toward arming an insurgency, this might be a good time for Congress to get involved. I know it’s quaint, but they do have war powers, last time I checked my Constitution. Bob Gates succeeded in getting a delay in any war powers resolution on Libya by Senate Democrats until after a briefing today with him and Hillary Clinton. But after that, Harry Reid said, “if in fact you want to do more legislatively, you’re entitled to do it…. The War Powers Act we believe is valid, is very clear, setting forth timelines.” It’s also clear that the President can only invoke force prior to a war powers resolution in the presence of an imminent threat, which Gates admitted was not the case in Libya.

In the House, where the White House doesn’t have the same kind of sway, Republicans are already introducing a bill to defund the Libyan operation, going further than a war powers resolution. Rep. Tim Johnson is the lead sponsor of the RECLAIM Act.

This afternoon, President Obama will convene a conference call for members of Congress on the operation in Libya, a tacit acknowledgment that there is great concern about the strategy and the constitutional legitimacy of the mission. Press Secretary Jay Carney said at his briefing that the President “update them on the transition of command and control to NATO.”

Boehner says that he respects the authority of the President as commander in chief. However, he writes, “I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that US military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission.”

The Pentagon claims that an expansion of the no-fly zone will enable them to hand off control of the mission to coalition partners, and American sorties have shrunk in the past couple days. But that has not been enough for Congress, interestingly enough. I have maintained that Congress didn’t really want the responsibility to give authorization for the action in Libya, and that they were generally happy for the White House to take the burden. But they’re not acting like that.

Obama is implicitly suggesting here that Libya presents an imminent threat to the United States, albeit an indirect one. This sort of satisfies the War Powers Act, which limits US military action to that circumstance. But Obama makes no inference to seeking Congressional authority within 60-90 days, as required. That’s because of this bank shot on Libya representing an imminent threat to the nation.