Posted on 12/18/2003 11:46:39 AM PST by Dog
AP via Fox news alert..
Lord help us from the judges..
A state of war exists only under a Declaration Of War from Congress.
There's been no such Declaration.
If there's some other statute, law, or provision that defines this thing called "state of war," please cite it and I'll stand corrected.
Precisely.
There's been no such Declaration.
It is longstanding precedent that a Declaration of War by the U.S. is only neccessary for the making of war when we have not yet been attacked, nor has war been declared against us. The Founding Fathers noted this in the incidences with the Barbary Pirates. A full declaration of war by our Congress results in many, many laws which severely abridge freedoms to go into effect - and so the Congress did a half-measure, by authorizing and funding a war.
Interesting statement. Then why did Congress enact the War Powers Resolution in 1973?
Anyway, you're not clearly reading these posts.
I'm saying that there is no legal definition for anything called "a state of war," and certainly there is no actual "state of war" without a formal Declaration Of War from Congress.
Authorizations Of Force are not Declarations Of War, and you guys know it. Stop pretending they're the same thing, they are most certainly not.
Hey, why don't you just cut the BS, OK? Let's see if you're bright enough to follow:
You know that only Congress can declare war. Yes?
You also know that Congress has not declared war. Correct?
Then you also know that we are not at war in the technical and legal sense mandated by the Constitution.
Get it?
Oh, you mean slicing and dicing jihadis? Of course. Don't be silly.
But I also believe that 9/11 warranted a formal Congressional Declaration Of War against al Qaeda and all other groups we deem as terrorists. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it, while the "war on terror" is both lame and imprecise.
It is a war against identifiable Islamist groups and their supporters, and the sooner we name them, formally Declare War on them, and kill them, the better.
Then what are they? They are not identical, but with the exception of not invoking broad DOMESTIC powers - such as triggering about 150 emergency provisions in the law, such as the right to impose censorship, to expedite licensing for nuclear facilities, and to control communications - the authorization is effectively the same.
Interesting statement. Then why did Congress enact the War Powers Resolution in 1973?
Because they felt like it. BTW, no later President has ever acknowledged the authority of that Act. They have always been very clear to abide by it as an official courtesy rather than legal obligation. Its Constitutionality is questionable - though all that is aside from the previous point.
Hamilton wrote that war "between two nations is completely produced by the act of one -it requires no concurrent act of the other. . . [W]hen a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very fact, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary."
Thomas Jefferson noted similarly while he was President.
That's pretty clearly a limited Declaration of War - limited to external force and procedures, and which denies authorization for "triggered" domestic powers over U.S. citizens.
True, but are we sure about this with Reinhardt? He generally is considered to be a "bully," as well as the most liberal appellate judge in the country, or at least the most activist in his beliefs. His opinion makes clear that he does not HAVE to issue it, since the SC will be taking up the other Guantanamo cases. I clerked on a federal court of appeals and we would almost always have waited when a parallel case is before the SC; anything else is completely wasteful, since you'll probably have to write a new decision when they rule. So besides being totally wrong on merits, the timing of the opinion is strange.
Except that ... Reinhardt's wife is Ramona Ripston, the head of the LA ACLU. Reinhardt says he is issuing the opinion to "help" the SC with its cases -- indicating that he recognizes issuing the opinion is DISCRETIONARY. But won't the ACLU file an amicus brief on behalf of the Guantanamo prisoners? Won't it be able to cite Reinhardt now? If it does, Reinhardt's decision (which is indefensible on the merits) appears to me to better explained as an attempt to influence the SC cases in which his wife has an arguable institutional interest than as an independent resolution of the California case.
Consequently, Reinhardt has an apparent conflict of interest and his actions create the appearance of impropriety, bringing into question the integrity and independence of the judiciary (i.e. a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics). This is grounds for impeachment, but it has to wait until the ACLU files its brief. I realize the impeachment would probably be unsuccessful, and even if successful, the Senate would not convict, but I disagree that he has not made himself potentially eligible for the procedure. And no, I am not Larry Klayman.
You think the Authorization is sufficient. I do not. That's all, fini.
http://www.rateitall.com/showimg.asp?k=2D716DDD-804B-4DAE-B8F8-6ABC02218955-0
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.