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 Constitutional power is NO LONGER in effect.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
Lately some are comparing this to Korea, Vietnam, or the Gulf War. Whatever one may think of those actions, this one is different, we are at war, we were attacked and are being attacked.
The government of Afghanistan for harboring criminals.
War is a political process. Crime is a judicial process. Confusing the two is not helpful.
I was thinking more along the lines of "Sh!T of Attorney", but thats just me.
1) Issuing a "joint resolution" would make it appear that they are taking decisive action without having to deal with the extra political baggage that might go along with actually voting to declare war.- or -
2) Declaring war would require some effort on the government's part to determine who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In other words, a declaration of war on specific parties would put too many constraints on the actions of the federal government. By passing a "joint resolution," Congress essentially left everything open-ended. The president--and any future president, for that matter--is free to bomb anyone he pleases as long as it falls under the loosely defined "war on terror."
- or -
3) There is a general consensus in Washington that following the Constitution is old-fashioned and too restrictive.
A range of Constitutional experts have said that a formal (and some would argue, archaic) declaration of war is reserve only for conflicts between nations. It does not apply to loosely organized, shadowy groups who are acting for themselves rather than as any nation's army.
Simply because Congress did not use that phrase in its resolution, what would you have us do? Fail to act while we debate and try to resolve these issues.
Absolutely. War is a political matter. Crime is a judicial matter. The Bush administration is slowly making progress at distinguishing the two. The lack of a true declaration of war by Congress is not helpful.
Why did Congress declare war after Pearl Harbor? For fun?
Did they?
I disagree totally. As a practical matter, my consent to be governed by the Constitution and to protect YOU with it is essential to any success you should expect from our government. I withdraw my consent to be governed by a Congress which ignores its sworn duty. You should be very concerned that I have withdrawn my consent.
And there are those that don't.
It is easy to read these threads and see who is concerned with liberty and who is not.
At least we all know where you stand.
Foreign interests, no. I don't think that's his motivation. I think he doesn't want a war declaration because that implies a possible end to the war, and with that go all the new war powers. His administration has already openly stated on several occasions that the war on terror is going to last all our lifetimes, or forever, depending on which statement you go by. Besides, if war were declared, enemy pow's would be protected by the Geneva Convention. I don't think he wants that either. But if we're going to sign treaties, we have to honor them, or formally withdraw from them. This signing treaties, and then ignoring the Constitution by not declaring war so we don't have to honor them when we don't feel like it doesn't fly.
The insurance policies were just icing on the cake.
"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, 8 December 1941
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.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m., E. S. T."
Please note it only took one day to accomplish this. Please also take special note that an 'act of war' was taken against us, which did not constitute our declaring war against another nation. That is Congress's job, and certainly not that of a foreign aggressor.
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.