Hey ladies/gentlemen:

I asked Senator Levin in 2003 why Congress gave the president authority to use force in Iraq, as this wasn’t the procedure set forth in the Consitution for declaring war. This is what he told me:

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the United
States extending its war on terrorism to nations beyond Iraq. I appreciate
hearing your views on this important issue.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the
power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in
1973, ensures that the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief are limited
to introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only
pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a
national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.

In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution (P.L.107-243)
authorizing the President to use military forces in Iraq. This resolution
provided for the use of United States armed forces to defend the national
security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and to
enforce all relevant United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq. The
legislative authority of this resolution limited military action to Iraq;
it did not provide authorization to extend hostilities to neighboring
countries.

The decision to authorize the President to use armed forces in Iraq
was reached through the democratic process. As you may recall, I offered
an alternative resolution that urged the U.N. Security Council to demand
unconditional access for U.N. inspectors to any site in Iraq and authorized
the use of necessary force by U.N. member states to enforce the resolution
if Iraq refused to comply. My resolution also authorized the use of the
U.S. armed forces against Iraq pursuant to such a U.N. Security Council
resolution. My alternative was defeated in the Senate.

Should the President request authorization to use armed forces in
future circumstances, a similar Congressional process, as guaranteed by the
Constitution and the War Powers Act, would be required. Authorizing the
use of military force is always a grave decision, one that must be
sufficiently considered and debated. I will keep your views in mind should
this issue come before the Senate in the future.

I don’t quite understand The War Powers Resolution. Did it make the Iraq war constitutionally legal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Legality_of_the_invasion

If you scoll down about 1/2 way, you'll find this:

Legality of the invasion

U.S. Law

Under the United States Constitution, presidents do not have authority to declare war. This power is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation, although under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president can send troops to a country without congress's consent for 60-90 days. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it cannot be superseded except by amendment to itself. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected. Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily, and Congress delegated its war powers to the President; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.

I am not sure, but didn't Congress decide to spend even more of MY MONEY (taxpayers' $$) to occupy Iraq in 2004?

If so, I want a refund. If no one else does, I'll be happy to take it all. :)

EDIT: I just read my post and I didn't answer your question.

I'm with you on the refund.
I think the fact that Congress gave the President the power to declare war is unconstitutional. I doubt any politician would agree with me of course.

I'm with you on the refund.
I think the fact that Congress gave the President the power to declare war is unconstitutional. I doubt any politician would agree with me of course.

Interesting. I wonder how those that pine for a Supreme Court that adheres stringently to the Constitution ... that the Constitution is the be all and end all ... will opine when they wade in: Unless the Constitution was amended when everyone wasn't looking, Congress cannot cede or grant the power to declare war to the President, can they?

Of course, we've been there before: the Constitution also states that Treaties signed by the USA become the supreme law of the land -- which would include the UN Charter Treaty -- and we all know that was wholly ignored. :corn:

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the
power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in
1973, ensures that the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief are limited
to introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only
pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a
national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.


I don’t quite understand The War Powers Resolution. Did it make the Iraq war constitutionally legal?

"SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION" =weasel words.A lawyer could argue a defense for GW starting from this premise. Was it an emergency? Was it pursuant to a declaration of war?
I wonder if this will end up in some kind of court...

A reading of the source document would be in order.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107IrILRJ::

Germane passages:

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Action was authorized because Iraq continued to violate the ceasefire of the 1991 Gulf War. This was not a new war, it was the clean up of one that never really ended.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

This has been proven true over and over again as AQ operative had led / participated in the "insurgency" (a word that would make Orwell proud).

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Wow - Even Clinton had a Policy of Pre-Emptive Regime Change (sadly, he never competently implemented it).

There's more to refute the Leftwing Fantasy that the war is illegal. But I suspect that the MEME that it is illegal is more important than The Truth, to those who are promoting it.

I'm with you on the refund.

Groff200, Nothing against you, but I want it all.

KanuckiStang posted:
Interesting. I wonder how those that pine for a Supreme Court that adheres stringently to the Constitution ... that the Constitution is the be all and end all ... will opine when they wade in: Unless the Constitution was amended when everyone wasn't looking, Congress cannot cede or grant the power to declare war to the President, can they?

Of course, we've been there before: the Constitution also states that Treaties signed by the USA become the supreme law of the land -- which would include the UN Charter Treaty -- and we all know that was wholly ignored.

KanuckiStang, it is obvious that you are an anti-freedom, terrorist-loving Canadian! It’s a certainty that you are anti-Semitic, too, and you’re a racist. (Calling people names is a mega-cool way to get out of actually discussing the issue, isn’t it?)

PeoplesChamp, I do not know. Understanding the Fed Govt is just about impossible for me to do. I did not know that Nixon tried to veto it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_powers_resolution_%28US_law%29

The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The Resolution is sometimes referred to as the "War Powers Act," but that law is an older one intended to define limits on trade with enemies during wartime.

The Senate and the House of Representatives achieved the 2/3 majority required to pass this joint resolution over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973.

Yes, the war is unconstitutional. I argued this again and again at the time when all ppl wanted to talk about were UN resolutions and other such non-sense.

Congress gives tacit approval by the simple fact they fund the war

Perhaps another conclusion that can be drawn from the events leading up to the Iraq war is that the Constitution is no longer in effect?

Perhaps another conclusion that can be drawn from the events leading up to the Iraq war is that the Constitution is no longer in effect?

The Constitution has not truly been in effect for a long time now, and conservatives have been unhappy about it. It is now getting scrutiny from the "other" side of the aisle because it has been circumvented to allow multiple presidents to wage war without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. The federal government has been unconstitutionally gathering power to itself for decades. Some examples include the use of the Commerce clause to forbid guns on school property, the discovery of the "right to privacy" used to forbid states from enacting restrictions on abortion, the federal income tax, welfare, etc. Some people support the things the government has done as a result of these moves, but they're still unconstitutional.

The constitution was written for a different and dealt with issues no longer relevant to modern society.
The republicans are just as guilty of stretching the meaning to suit their purposes as the democrats.

Congress writes laws all the time. That's primarilly what they do. They gave the President the authority to go to war, as they did in the first gulf war. It's perfectly legal.

Congress has only declared war 11 times, and 8 of those declarations were in WWI and WWII against different countries. The 3 before that were the war of 1812 against The United Kingdom, the Mexican American War, and the Spanish American War. They have since written laws so that they don't need a formal declaration of war in order to use military force. No other military actions we have been involved in have been because of a declaration of war.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Bush broke the supreme law of the United States.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Bush broke the supreme law of the United States.

If he did, then so did Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixxon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton.

Carter also approved covert operations against the Soviets in Afgahnistan, which continued through the Reagan/Bush years until the pullout in 1989, so he's probably just as guilty too. Afganistan was the most successful proxy war ever conducted by the U.S. against the Soviets.

So do we throw all of the living Presidents in prison, or just our current President??

^^^ Whoa. We may have to get a working definition for "War."

PC, you are correct. By Betrades logic, im thinking we could go ahead and sum up kent state as a war. Whats more, I dont think Betrade is exactly taking the changes that have happend since many of those presidents were in office into consideration. Well, not so much consideration as doesnt know whats changed.

Haven't you good folks figure out by now that the U.S. federal government can do whatever it wants to? Legality is a merely a matter of perspective.

PC, you are correct. By Betrades logic, im thinking we could go ahead and sum up kent state as a war. Whats more, I dont think Betrade is exactly taking the changes that have happend since many of those presidents were in office into consideration. Well, not so much consideration as doesnt know whats changed.

SS,


I get the impression you want to apply some form of penalties to a President that you don't like, without applying them to his predecessors; especially his immediate predecessor, who also attacked Iraq, and waged war in the Balkans with no formal declaration of war.

I'm also curious. What "changes" are you talking about specifically?? What's changed since Clinton's stated policy of ultimate regime change in Iraq? What's changed since Bush 41?

Should Clinton, Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Bob Kerry, Tom Daschel, Joe Biden, and all of the other Dems who publicly stated that Sadaam had WMD be held accountable?


Should all of the dems who voted to give the president the authority to wage war be prosecuted for violating the Constitution? Should the U.N. be held accountable for passing 17 resolutions against Sadaam, or for attempting to enforce the sanctions that had been in place since 1991?

Were Congress to disagree with the President's policy in Iraq, they simply have to pull the purse strings. By doing the opposite, they are complicit with his policy.

Betrade, wtf are you talking about? Is everything that partisan to you? Our laws be damned in the name of partisanship?

Look at the second part of this title. I merely explained why this war is illegal. You can take your partisan rhetoric to the ears of someone who is as brainwashed by party propaganda as you appearintly are.

And. For the 500,000,000 times, Im not a democrat. Get the **** over it people. You cant classify me that way. I disagree with much of Clintons policys. But hell, if nothing else I enjoyed having an intelligent president. One who could form cognitive sentances by himself, and speak passionatly on his own behalf about logical things. Things not from comic books. Why do I hate Bush so passionatly? He's not even an intellect opposing view, he's a dumbass.

Since when the "Law" or other such frivolous technicalities stop the BA ?

Betrade, wtf are you talking about? Is everything that partisan to you? Our laws be damned in the name of partisanship?

Look at the second part of this title. I merely explained why this war is illegal. You can take your partisan rhetoric to the ears of someone who is as brainwashed by party propaganda as you appearintly are.

And. For the 500,000,000 times, Im not a democrat. Get the **** over it people. You cant classify me that way. I disagree with much of Clintons policys. But hell, if nothing else I enjoyed having an intelligent president. One who could form cognitive sentances by himself, and speak passionatly on his own behalf about logical things. Things not from comic books. Why do I hate Bush so passionatly? He's not even an intellect opposing view, he's a dumbass.

SS,

So, what are the changes you mentioned???

(...)
Why do I hate Bush so passionatly? He's not even an intellect opposing view, he's a dumbass.

I've shown repeatedly how that statement is completely wrong, and why Bush keeps winning because of it.

Betrade, wtf are you talking about? Is everything that partisan to you? Our laws be damned in the name of partisanship?

Look at the second part of this title. I merely explained why this war is illegal. You can take your partisan rhetoric to the ears of someone who is as brainwashed by party propaganda as you appearintly are.

And. For the 500,000,000 times, Im not a democrat. Get the **** over it people. You cant classify me that way. I disagree with much of Clintons policys. But hell, if nothing else I enjoyed having an intelligent president. One who could form cognitive sentances by himself, and speak passionatly on his own behalf about logical things. Things not from comic books. Why do I hate Bush so passionatly? He's not even an intellect opposing view, he's a dumbass.

SS,

Oh, one more question. Did you mean 'intelligent" in that last sentence, or am I missing something??