Free Republic

It’s not as if President-elect Barack Obama doesn’t have enough on his plate with a financial meltdown and a home-state scandal. But now he is delving into the thorny question of who can send the country into war. In between interviewing cabinet nominees and announcing health care plans, Mr. Obama plans to meet Thursday with the leaders of a commission that has proposed revamping the legal process for launching military action, to require more consultation between a president and Congress. The proposal would scrap the problematic War Powers Act of 1973, a measure passed in the hangover from Vietnam to...

While listening to the House speeches concerning the "Iraq resolution", Rep. Chet Edwards, D., Texas used as a point, the fact that checks and balances were in place to prevent the Executive branch from having absolute power in waging war.

As Capitol Hill prepares to battle the White House over George W. Bush's expanding war powers, moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle are quietly considering a range of options that would attempt at the very least to delineate the President's authority, if not roll it back. Bush's claims of wartime license are so great--the White House and Justice Department have argued that the Commander in Chief's pursuit of national security cannot be constrained by any laws passed by Congress, even when he is acting against U.S. citizens--that some Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to limit his powers....

Do the arguments in this paper not hold true for Bush as they did for Clinton? WMD being irrelevant.Somalia In the meantime, after consultations between the Clinton Presidency and U.N. Secretary- General Boutros Butros-Ghali (but not between President Clinton and the U.S. Congress), an important policy decision had been made and was in the process of being carried out. This was the decision to transform the Somalia operation from a limited intervention with a humanitarian objective (distributing food to the starving Somalis) into an overly ambitious and totally unrealistic plan for "nation-building"--a plan for forcibly imposing national unity on the...

Legality of War Still Debated Worldwide By TOM RAUM .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration says the war in Iraq is lawful, an assessment disputed by many skeptical foreign leaders and international law scholars. It is a a debate that U.S. officials hope will subside once Saddam Hussein is toppled and a new government in power. But the criticism is just as likely to intensify if the war is prolonged and if there are many civilian casualties. Television images beamed around the world of the massive American aerial bombardment of Baghdad, showing dozens of buildings going...

As of this writing, American and British forces are poised to attack Iraq. Questions of military strategy, geopolitics and morality loom large, but so do questions of law. Is the war to disarm and dislodge Saddam Hussein justified under international law? Has it been adequately authorized under U.S. law, with proper Congressional approval? It is doubtful that any court will ever address either question, but that may provide all the more reason to consider these issues in the court of public opinion. The International Law Issue: Three Possible Grounds for War Under international law, force is authorized in essentially two...

Precedent? I’ll Give You A Precedent by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief October 9, 2002 "Candidly Yours" During the House Hearings today on authorization of use of force against Iraq, the level of posturing extended far beyond humorous to sublimely grotesque. Had enough of the nonsense? So have I. Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we? First and foremost, as I have already shown, President Bush was not the one who changed our nuclear first-strike policy: President Clinton did. In November of 1997, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, which allowed the United States to "consider using...

<p>President Bush yesterday formally declared to Congress his authority under the War Powers Act to use America's armed forces against Iraq and told top lawmakers in a classified Oval Office briefing that the United States is "making progress" in its military operation to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime.</p>

<p>WASHINGTON — For the second time this week, President Bush formally notified Congress on Friday that he is sending U.S. troops into combat in Iraq.</p> <p>The notification was made under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The law requires congressional approval if troops remain in a conflict for more than 60 days. Congress already gave its approval in October as part of a resolution authorizing force against Iraq.</p>

Bush vs. Congress: The War Powers ResolutionBy Henry Mark HolzerFrontPageMagazine.com | September 12, 2002 On September 4, 2002, amidst a national guessing game over President Bush's intentions regarding Iraq and the role of Congress in his plans, the president sent a carefully worded letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert. After establishing that America and the civilized world are at a crossroads regarding Iraq, Mr. Bush wrote (the emphasis is mine): I am in the process of deciding how to proceed. This is an important decision that must be made with great thought and care. Therefore, I...