[DugwayDuke]

"It makes a lot of sense to me to insist that Congress pass a formal declaration of war rather than an "authorization to use force" to enforce UN resolutions."

Three simple questions to show just how ludicrous your point is.

First, please quote that portion of the Constitution that defines the content and format of a "Declaration of War". Congress has plenary power to declare war. They can use any language or format they wish.

Second, just exactly what is a declaration of war other than an authorization to use force?

Third, suppose you were the chief of a country that was the object of an authorization to use force, would you claim that a state of war did not exist?

[Ahban]

In answer to your first question, here is how NOT to 'declare war' on another country. It's the actual text of the resolution on "use of force".....

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

---

You claim my point is ludicrous, but it is not my point that is ludicrous, but rather that vacilliating, loop-hole filled bunch of tripe that President Bush and Congress worked out.

As to your second point, a declaration of war is an authorization to use force, but not every authorization to use force is a declaration of war- as the convoluted text above shows. A declaration of war is decisive and clear. President Bush acted decisively, but he was not acting on a decisive authorization.

Your third point, who can say? It would depend on what was in the best interests of that dictator. The key is not what HE would say, but how something short of the Constitutional declaration of war can effect US, and divide us. It gives the other party wiggle room when things don't work out. They can say, "That is not what I authorized. I authorized him to get the weapons of mass destruction".