Posted on 03/04/2002 12:03:49 PM PST by oursacredhonor
With our military actions waning in Afghanistan, the administration appears to be gearing up for a second phase in the Middle East. Although the Al-Queda threat has not yet been fully neutralized, political and popular support for a full-scale war against Iraq is growing. The President explicitly named Iraq as a target in his State of the Union address, and British Prime Minister Blair recently stated his backing for such an invasion.
Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests.
First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq. Undeclared wars represent one of the greatest threats to our constitutional separation of powers over the last 50 years, beginning with our "police action" in Korea. This most sacred legislative function- the power to send our young people into harm's way- must be exercised by Congress alone, the body most directly connected to the electorate.
The undeclared wars waged by various Presidents during the last century represent a very serious usurpation of the legislative function, adding greatly to the rise of the "imperial Presidency" that we witnessed so clearly during the Clinton years. I'm always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation. The reason for this, I'm afraid, is Congress learned in Vietnam that wars sometimes go very badly, and few want to be on record as having voted for a war if they can avoid it. So despite all the talk in Congress of "supporting the President," nobody wants to really support him by doing the obvious and passing a declaration of war.
Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq. So often we lose sight of the true purpose of our military, which is to defend our borders against attack. Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade. We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we've made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.
Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.
Ron Paul is right. Congress has divested itself of Constitutionally mandated responsibilities via legislation (federal reserve), by ommision (war declaration), and delegation (pass a vague outline, and let the bureaucrats actually write the law).
This left the congresscritters with so much time on their dirty little hands they cannot help but barge into areas prohibited to them by the Constitution.
Regards
J.R.
, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
That gives Bush pretty broad authority to react to other nations. All he needs to say is he believes that the action he is about to take against someone,no matter how indirect, will be in order to prevent future attacks.
The last part of the sentence is open ended enough to encompass others.
To me, the resolution is still referring to those directly responsible. I don't see it as an open-ended free-for-all.
Well, my friend....
If you are so ignorant that you have to ask who Ron Paul is...
...I damned sure don't care what YOU think!
A different reading is an attempt to parse away the orginal meaning and intent.
My question to Mr. Paul is this: Where does the Constitution require a declaration of war? It provides for Congress to declare war, but I don't see where it requires the Executive to get a declaration. And apparantly, most other folks don't see it either. Someone show me where I am wrong.
How's married life treating you?
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Consitution.
"It provides for Congress to declare war, but I don't see where it requires the Executive to get a declaration."
What would be the point of this provision if it didn't require the Executive to get a declaration?
How should I know? Diplomatic reasons? International protocol? Fact is, from the standpoint of strict construction, I can't find any requirement in the Constitution along the lines of "Congress shall authorize no troops without a declaration of war." That would settle the matter, 'cept it ain't there.
Anyway, I'm curious to see what the Federalist Papers say.
Thanks!
In most of these particulars the power of the President will resemble equally that of the King of Great-Britain and the Governor of New-York. The most material points of difference are these--First; the President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation, as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The King of Great-Britain and the Governor of New-York have at all times the entire command of the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article therefore the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the Monarch or the Governor. Secondly; the President is to be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great-Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the confederacy: while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the Constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.
The role of the President as Commander in Chief is to simply direct the armed forces after they have been called to action by the Congress of the United States. You are correct in the fact that the language in the Constitution is vague but I believe this to be the original intent.
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
So it appears to me that, as you point out, the Legislative Branch is vested with more military powers than the Executive, but I still do not see a requirement placed on the Legislature to declare war in order to call forth the militia. The power to call forth the militia is acceptable to repel invasions, with or without a declaration of war, based on a plain reading. Well then, nowadays we don't "call forth state militias", because we have a professional standing army, but the Legislature has authorized the calling forth of our Armed Forces, at the request of the Executive, for defensive purposes. Seems all right and proper to me.
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.