I'm not going to get much into the commentary on this one. Mark Levin (who I'm a fan of by the way) makes a pretty weak and incoherent argument on presidential war powers and gets thrashed by libertarian columnist and author Tom Woods. Simply put, Levin thinks that it is proper for a President to start offensive wars without a formal Declaration of War. Tom Woods makes a very succinct and coherent argument to the contrary. Woods challenged Levin to back up his position with evidence that the Federalists approved of the President entering non-defensive conflicts without consulting Congress.
Disappointingly, Mark changes the subject and does his name-calling thing. Link to the debate below:
Tom Woods / Mark Levin War Powers Debate
A well thought out piece by Tom Woods on the subject:
The Phony Argument For Presidential War Powers