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 Constitutional power is NO LONGER in effect.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
That was different. Bound by NATO's decisions, we were required by the NATO charter to act.
I am glad we have that cleared up. If there does come a day when the red-zone defies the blue-zone, may I assume that you do not intend to join in the fray? Or will you use force of arms to govern me without my consent?
No. We were bound to nullify the NATO charter. Congress has the power to declare war. Not NATO.
Yes. ( And yes, we do agree on a lot. )
The Constitution may not be the perfect form of government but it is far superior to whatever it is that is in use now. Exercising the self-discipline to declare war when it is justified will have the additional benefit of allowing us to remain "neutral" in circumstances which are none of our business. Globalism is a bad idea which presumes that ideas do not have to be tested and found effective.
The fall of the Soviet Union is one of the clearest indicators of the ineffectiveness and tyranny of Marxism. Other nations who practice ineffective government need to compete with us to see the limitations of their systems.
Any nation which disarms it citizens is practicing an inferior form of government and is undeserving of our aid.
Thanks!
At least this thread has allowed us to revisit the issue with the Joint Resolution in-hand...
Thanks for your opinion.
Yessiree! A DOW would have to state not only the Country in question but would need to include a set objective which would need to culminate in either a surrender or some sort of peace treaty. This is why both Korea and Vietnam ended with "cease fires". They were both UN police actions that we had no business being involved in (not in ANY way to disparage those of our gallant men and women who fought in these "actions"). The document currently up for consideration here has no set provisions for its end and is therefore, not a valid DOW. It only provides the office of President (no matter who that might be in the future) broad powers to abuse both the Constitution and the soverign citizens of this Nation at his discretion.
I hope that Congress declares war on Iraq before the invasion itself begins. Maybe they don't actually have to, but they can for any reason or for no reason at all, and they should to clarify the situation and silence our detractors.
We are in a war. We have an enemy. This is demonstrated by the 3,000 dead on 9/11. By the bombings of our embassies and the attacks on our ships.
We either fight the war or we do not. Bush has been given the power to do so by a joint resolution of Congress, just as power was conferred on previous Presidents by joint resolutions. That, by the way, is the form that these things take: Joint Resolutions.
What seems to throw a lot of people is that we were not attacked by a country. We were not attacked by enemy missiles, tanks or planes. That is why its so difficult for people with fixed ideas of what war is to understand the current situation. They refuse to think outside the box. They want their enemies nice and neat, and their joint resolutions just so. Well, let your mind adapt. Learn to understand the current situation. It doesnt require a fleet of aircraft carriers launched from an identified country to wipe out New York City. A people and a government that does not understand that is as dead as the Dodo. Especially when you have literally millions of people who want you dead and who dance in the streets and give their children candy when your buildings burn and your fellow citizens die.
A range of Constitutional experts
An "expert" has been defined as someone who reads the same books you do. I'm not impressed with talking heads on the toob.
(and some would argue, archaic)
I'm glad you don't appear to be making that argument. Liberals use this argument every time they want to extract something non-existent in the Constitution.
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.
Why are you making excuses for the failure of Congress to act as they're required? Your beef is with Congress, not me. It's not my fault they either don't know what they're doing, they have a hidden agenda, are a bunch of mealy-mouthed pissants, or don't have a command of the English language. Tell them to do their jobs or tell the voters to get somebody who can.
It is quite apparent that President Bush requested the approval of Congress prior to hostilities and it was granted. There seems to even be a confusion of the legal status of a Joint Congressional Resolution, as they were used in the process of such important acts as the admission of Texas to the Union and the annexation of Hawaii. In fact some declarations of war have been called Joint Resolutions.
Compare the wording of these various Declarations, and the recent Joint Resolution for the use of force after 911:
DECLARATION OF WAR WITH SPAIN
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, First. That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the 21st day of April, A. D. 1898, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.
Second. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States to such extent as may be necessary to carry this act into effect.
Approved, April 25, 1898.
DECLARATION OF WAR WITH GERMANY IN WWI
WHEREAS, The Imperial German Government has committed repeated 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 German Government, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and
That the President be, and he 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 German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISM
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 treacherous 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
(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.
Did anyone ever think that maybe the reason we didn't declare against Afghanistan as a nation was to prevent all Afghans from rallying against a common enemy?
You two don't have a clue.
Until you can say why you understand it better than they, quit making fools of yourselves.
In 1815, during Madison's administration, they declared war.
Jefferson just had a resolution.
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.