[Texasforever]

Failure to get a formal, outright declaration of war simply invites disunity later on when problems start to mount.

How many times doe this nonsense have to be shot down to kill it. There is NO constitutional language for a "formal declaration of War" there is only the requirement that Congress give the green light to activate the president's CIC powers. That was done by the joint resolution. Every thing else is a semantic argument used to bolster a weak case.

[RaceBannon]

FDR asked that Congress declare that a state orf war exists between Japan and the US, that sounds pretty clear.

We need to have Congress use the same language.

[duk]

Could you provide a link to the exact resolution so we can all read it?

Thanks
duk

[Eastbound]

"There is NO constitutional language for a "formal declaration of War" there is only the requirement that Congress give the green light to activate the president's CIC powers."

Sounds right to me. What could be a more clear assent for war by Congress than to fund it? To actually utter the words and sign a declaration to be sent to the embassy of a nation to be invaded? I think not. In the case of Iraq, the declaration of war was printed on the first bomb which burrowed deep into what was believed to be Saddam's bunker.

[Ahban]

Look at post #46. That resoultion is a textbook example of weasel wording. What does it mean to "defend the United States against the threat posed by Iraq"? Does it mean use the military to secure our borders? Seal them inside theirs? Enforce the sanctions with a naval blockade? What happens when it is discovered that Iraq posed no real threat, does that mean it is no longer OK to use force?

The Constitution DOES have constitutional language to declare war : It says "Congress shall have the power to DECLARE WAR". What is so hard about that? There should be a resoulution saying "The government of the United States hereby declares war on Iraq". Period. No escape clauses, no uncertainty, no moving goal posts, no hint of limits or conditions.

A declaration of war, if done constitutionally, should contain the words "declare" and "war", just as is used in the constitution. This resolution has neither, and President Bush should not have settled for it. Words mean things.

[sauropod]

"How many times doe this nonsense have to be shot down to kill it. There is NO constitutional language for a "formal declaration of War" there is only the requirement that Congress give the green light to activate the president's CIC powers. That was done by the joint resolution. Every thing else is a semantic argument used to bolster a weak case."

Oh man! For once, I actually agree with you.

Better break out the champagne.