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

To: Texasforever
You still have not gone back and answered my question yet in another thread in a discussion you started. Now you flag me to another another thread. You prove to me over and over when you dont like my answers and when I refer to the constitution you call it semantics. So why flag me?

From your post: "declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term.

Catch that? "to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term." He didnt declare war.

Congress has acted and has decided what it wants to do about Sept. 11, IT resolved to give Bush 60 days to use force and if he wants more he has to ask. They limited his war powers and tied his hands. The Joint Resolution from Congress specifically points to the War Powers Resolution Requirments.

. Here is the snip from the Joint Resolution from Congress authorizing force

"Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements" Here is a snip from the begining of thw 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

Here are the 3 choices and CONGRES PICKED #2 "specific statutory authorization" ALSO if you notice it says OR before #3

(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."

OK now continuing..... from The Joint Resolution from Congress, it specifically points out Statutory Authorization Here is the snip    

 "(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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. "

Now Here is section 8 (a) and 5 (b) from the War Powers 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.

Sec. 5(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. So since congress did not declare war and the only thing it did declare was "Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution" and I guess you could say Section 8 (a)(1),

42 posted on 11/20/2001 8:12:06 PM PST by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Native American Female Vet
The fact is that the 60 day requirement is only a reporting requirement and is NOT a restraint of Bush's powers as a war time CIC. We are in a state of war. Is it for 60 day increments I don't know and neither do you. I posted this to put the Barbary Pirate issue to rest. I think it does.
44 posted on 11/20/2001 8:17:47 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Native American Female Vet
The Joint resolution did NOT impose a time limit

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Here are the 3 choices and CONGRES PICKED #2 "specific statutory authorization" ALSO if you notice it says OR before #3

No Congress chose the 1st condition you don't understand the meaning of "or".

47 posted on 11/20/2001 8:27:49 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

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