Posted on 06/14/2002 10:22:22 AM PDT by SunStar
Let's all re-read the Congressional Joint Resolution of September 14, 2001.
I'm sick and tired of all the supposed conservative Constitutional "defenders" (and plenty of Leftists as well) who continue to argue that President Bush is not entitled to War Powers, that he is acting in an inappropriate matter, that he is making "arbitrary" rules and regulations up as he goes, and that our Constitution is in jeopardy because Congress did not "Declare War".
Case in point: This was posted by a Freeper yesterday:
Yes War powers are in effect - without a war vote. Constitutional power is NO LONGER in effect. There'll be a lot more crying in the future, perhaps even you and your fellow Bill of Rights shredders. Too late by then tho. Enjoy it - while you can.
This is an example of a supposed conservative, who thinks President Bush is a dictator! Excuse me, but I think we are at war! Congress did in fact declare war. One can attempt to make a semantic argument over the title of the resolution, but the resolution itself says it all. I suggest that everyone keep a copy of this document handy, since the bogus "Congress did not declare war" argument is being used by the Left on a daily basis. The argument is faulty, and those who use it should be called on it. Congress did fact authorized President Bush to do exactly what he is doing -- make war on the enemy, and work to stop future attacks.
-SunStar
September 14, 2001
This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:
To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,
Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military 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
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.
Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
From "The War Powers Act of 1973"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html
"But, but, but......."
Congress has no stated power to declare peace. We have already suffered because there was no way to hold Congress accounatable for ending an undeclared war or for committing the resources of the nation to "winning" it.
The Resolution is purposely ambiguous. It grants permission for the President to do whatever he wants to do if he simply says it is related to 911. Yet Congress intentionally did NOT declare war on anybody. They could have used the verbiage if they had chosen to do so, but they did not.
If Congress had intended to be upfront, clear, honest, and unambiguous, they would have declared war instead of granting carte blanche to the CiC.
In your reasoning, we have been at war since LBJ declared War on Poverty in the 1960's. Congress has certainly passed numerous laws and resolutions to fund and support a WoP, and we have not declared victory.
This is all the more reason to declare war. Congress is abusing its power to hold insurance companies responsible for "acts of war" which their policy specifically excludes. In effect, insurance companies are being robbed by Congress.
Why couldn't Congress just simply declare war?December 8, 1941 JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
After all, it was the acting Taliban government of Afghanistan that we attacked. If you want to use the Barbary Pirate example in support of our actions, then we should have limited our attacks specifically to terrorist locations. Instead, Bush used this as an opportunity to take out the Taliban and engage in "nation building," something he said he wouldn't do.Sptember 12, 2001 JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the terrorist government of Afghanistan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the terrorist government of Afghanistan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the terrorist government of Afghanistan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the terrorist government of Afghanistan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
If you believe, as Bush does, that any government harboring terrorists is just as culpable, then why not support a declaration of war on those nations and be done with it? It's not that hard for Congress to do.
Thanks for "declaring" that. It makes your position very clear. I only wish that Congress would make its position clear and do its duty to "Declare War" just like you did.
Norm, Norm, Norm...
First it was military tribunals. When sh_t hit the fan over that, the administration swore that this was NEVER for US citizens.
A few weeks later, Padilla, a US citizen, is held purportedly for military tribunal. When the heat came down for that, it was changed to simply holding him indefinately without charging him with a crime.
Under the Patriot Act, anyone who meets some very subjective criteria can be denied all rights due a citizen because the DoJ simply has to declare him a potential terrorist.
It won't be today, tomorrow, or next month, but soon there will be more an more people and groups who will be included in the definition of Enemy of the State. And it may very well be anyone and everyone affiliated with any group whose members or participants do not fully and unequivocably support the President's agenda. And since FR has critics of the President, and YOU are affiliated with FR, YOU could be included. Innocent, you say? Prove it.
True. The administration asked them not to. Have you asked yourself why they did that?
Better to piss on the Constitition? We've some very twisted priorities here.
The Declaration of War with Japan was a joint resolution.
/john
It almost seems as if you are starting to understand.
Prior wars have benefitted from a clear understanding of who the "belligerents" are and who are the "neutrals". If the Taliban had made some pretext that they were attempting to turn over OBL, then they might be a "neutral". Failure to do so should have provoked a second declaration of war against the government of Afghanistan for enabling our enemies. As things stand without formal declarations of war, there is no way for a "neutral" nation to understand unambiguously what they must or must not do.
I suggest that a reading of the beginning of the Declaration of Independence is in order here.
"...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them ..."
. . . thought it reads more like a 'Writ of Attorney' that any declaration. . .
Ehh, ehh, ehh, .... you said swap rods.....huh, eh, eh, huh.
LOL!
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.