Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What are the implications of a declaration of war?
Vanity, Question to Freepers | Setp 16, 2001 | self

Posted on 09/16/2001 8:59:19 AM PDT by etcetera

I have a question for Freepers in the legal profession, haven't been able to find info in Internet...

Congress gave President Bush authority to use military action, but failed to explicitly declare war. I believe that there will be legal consequences from this failure because a declaration of war carries with it special implications in terms of law. Can anyone give me the specifics?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 09/16/2001 8:59:19 AM PDT by etcetera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: etcetera
You may have a long wait on your hands. Some congressman was on Sean Hannity's show the other day and specifically said we didn't want to officially declare war because of limitations that we would face via the Geneva Convention. Someone else later implied that we were limited by it whether there was an official declaration or not. Looks like nobody really knows for sure.
2 posted on 09/16/2001 9:07:45 AM PDT by Who dat?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
et:
Got room here for an amateur?
During a long social discussion the other night, a lady who is a lawyer (but a specialist in water rights) said she thought the Geneva Convention signatories agreed that a formal declaration of war would only be against a nation, and not a subset.
She kept apologizing for not knowing that part of law, but she was the closest we had to an academic on the subject.
Thus, since no nation claims credit, who to we declare against? That's the legal opinion. From a water rights attorney. Late at night. In a bar.
And she'd kill me if she knew I was informally quoting here as background.
Sure hope you get a real answer here.
3 posted on 09/16/2001 9:09:09 AM PDT by KirklandJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
The Avalon Project : War Powers Resolution

The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School

War Powers Resolution


Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of Untied States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment. CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,

November 7, 1973.

The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same. Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives. W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative. Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.

20th Century Page Avalon Home Page Congressional Resolutions


4 posted on 09/16/2001 9:11:13 AM PDT by vmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
Here's the way I see it.

A declaration of war is essential if we intend to be victorious in this endeavor. The reason is, is that when you are in a war their can be only two outcomes; winning or losing.

Notice that with all (or most) of the undeclared wars in the last 50 years, that we settled for outcomes such as "peace with honor", or "negotiated piece" and that kind of crap. We don't win them because we were never committed in the first place.

To win, you must be committed. You must be willing to accept nothing but victory.

If were not willing to make the commitment to winning, by declaring war, then we might as well capitulate right now.

Call or fax your congress critters and insist that war be declared!

5 posted on 09/16/2001 9:13:47 AM PDT by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who dat?
Just about every insurance policy I have ever had/seen annuls itself in case of Act of War.

Imagine the loss to the holders and the gain to insurance company's.

If War is called, then it will be tax-payer money only that rebuilds, and it will be more than buildings ... counseling for survivors, medical for life, etc.

Very tough place to be.

Congress needs to free the President's hand to do as he pleases to any degree and extent. We need to support him (which is really self-support as we, the people, are the ones that have been attacked), and swallow any distaste we may have for whatever may result from what war will produce.

We already know the enemy ... he is evil and he is a terrorist ... I don't care if it is mid-eastern, Ireland or Baltimore, our response should be swift and immediate ... the Roy Bean Response, if you will.

6 posted on 09/16/2001 9:14:03 AM PDT by knarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
et:
vmatt sure hooked a big one.
My lawyer friend was out of law school by '73, so I'll stay with her for water rights, and that's about it.
7 posted on 09/16/2001 9:15:48 AM PDT by KirklandJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
Bump

I too would like to know why they haven’t declared War. Could it possibly be that they feel that if we get in too deep they can just pull the authorization? This is the kinda stuff we had to put up with in Viet Nam. If we are to put our young people in harms way they need to know we are in it for the duration and not at the whim of political hacks.

I also believe that reserve call ups have a specific time limit (6 to 9 mos) then they must be relived, also I seem to remember something about an employer must guarantee a reservist his/her job for a year, but a War declaration it must be preserved for the duration. There are provisions that protect the economy as well as companies declared necessary for the war effort.

We must have a formal declaration of war not for the “Revenge” issue but for the protection it provides out industries, our citizens and our fighting forces. Lets make sure that the “Rug” can’t be pulled out from under ‘em. We owe them that much.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

8 posted on 09/16/2001 9:21:02 AM PDT by Robe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe
"I too would like to know why they haven’t declared War."

Not a lawyer but there is no real need to declare war IMHO.

9 posted on 09/16/2001 9:25:06 AM PDT by vmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: knarf
The list of officeholders calling the bombing of Tuesday an Act of War is long. Can an Act of War, such as Pearl Harbor, occur before a Declaration of War? Indeed, can an Act of War, ever occur without a Declaration of War?
10 posted on 09/16/2001 9:25:41 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
We do not have a Declaration of War

It is the story no one is reporting. This, lack, only puts us in the same position as we were in Korea and Vietnam. The National Command Authority will be hamstrung by Politicians. There will be places we cannot attack, cannot bomb. Targets and Tactics will be decided by Politicians not the Military. This is spin of the first magnitude.

Mourn the Republic
1776-2001</font color=purple>

11 posted on 09/16/2001 9:25:44 AM PDT by The Shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who dat?
Some congressman was on Sean Hannity's show the other day and specifically said we didn't want to officially declare war because of limitations that we would face via the Geneva Convention.

Do you know how ridiculous this is? The GC is about protection of prisoners and non-combatants. Iy does not restrict US agression against our enemies in any way. This is pure BS posing as an excuse for the all-too-evident inaction by the Senate.

OTOH, without a declaration of war, we are just terrorists and vigilantes pursuing a private vendetta across the geographic and political boundaries of other nations. This was our status in Kosovo, Afganistan, and Sudan under clinton and it will be our status in this "war" on terrorism if the Senate doesn't get a spine.

12 posted on 09/16/2001 9:26:02 AM PDT by otterpond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Who dat?
There have been several snippets of news out of Washington that the Dems do not (did not) wish to give the Authority to President Bush that a Declaration would provide. The Administration wanted a united front in Congress so they backed off the call for a Declaration.

Mourn the Republic
1776-2001</font color=purple>

13 posted on 09/16/2001 9:28:36 AM PDT by The Shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: babygene
If were not willing to make the commitment to winning, by declaring war, then we might as well capitulate right now.

I recall and old saying “ The hen is involved in breakfast but the pig is committed”

GBA

14 posted on 09/16/2001 9:31:07 AM PDT by Robe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Who dat?
The first one was Tom DeLay, the second Bob Barr.
Dat be who dat!;-)
15 posted on 09/16/2001 9:32:11 AM PDT by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Who dat?
One consequence to NOT having declared war with Viet Nam is that Jane Fonda, and Tom Hayden can walk around in our society. DECLARE WAR so we can PROSECUTE TRAITORS.
17 posted on 09/16/2001 9:44:03 AM PDT by stumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Who dat?
One consequence to NOT having declared war with Viet Nam is that Jane Fonda, and Tom Hayden can walk around in our society. DECLARE WAR so we can PROSECUTE TRAITORS.
18 posted on 09/16/2001 9:46:08 AM PDT by stumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: otterpond
Do you know how ridiculous this is? The GC is about protection of prisoners and non-combatants. Iy does not restrict US agression against our enemies in any way. This is pure BS posing as an excuse for the all-too-evident inaction by the Senate.

Yes, but it gets even more ridiculous because a formal "declaration of war" is irrelevant as to whether the Geneva Conventions apply. Under basic tenets of international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions apply to any situation that constitutes an "international armed conflict." The phrase "international armed conflict" is itself a term of art and does not require that a "declaration of war" have been made by any of the combatants.

So, yes, this "excuse" is BS.

19 posted on 09/16/2001 10:00:21 AM PDT by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
Is it ‘War’?
20 posted on 09/16/2001 10:00:39 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson