[SunStar]

A resolution is merely an expression of opinion. It carries less weight than an ordnance, much less an Act. It would be nice if folks would look up a legal dictionary at the same time they start quoting law.

Make excuses all you want, but this "Joint Resolution" expressed the full will of BOTH HOUSES of Congress. It SPECIFICALLY authorizes President Bush to use Executive War Powers, like it or not.

[agitator]

The Constitution and the law is not an excuse. You just don't get it - or don't want to get it. "To hell with the legal dictionary, specifically defined legal words mean whatever I want them to mean when I want them to mean it!" - apparently that's your joint resolution and it carries just as much authority as the resolution at issue.

[FreeTally]

Make excuses all you want, but this "Joint Resolution" expressed the full will of BOTH HOUSES of Congress. It SPECIFICALLY authorizes President Bush to use Executive War Powers, like it or not.

The Constitution mentions nothing of a "joint resolutions" amd "full will", but it does prescribe the exact way the country is to decalre war, which has not been done. Nor does the constitution describe any way for Congress to grant the President "Executive War Powers" in any other way than an official declaration of war. Like it, or not, you are wrong, and the government is yet again violating the constitution.

[William Tell]

SunStar said: "Make excuses all you want, but this "Joint Resolution" expressed the full will of BOTH HOUSES of Congress. It SPECIFICALLY authorizes President Bush to use Executive War Powers, like it or not."

No. The Congress has the power to declare war. They cannot pass a resolution suggesting that the President has the power to declare war. The power of Congress does not include giving themselves more power or less power than the Constitution dictates. The Congress is obligated to declare war if they believe that the President is justified in carrying out a war against an enemy. That is their duty.

[dixierat22]

We could argue the Constitutionality of the WPA, but that's another topic. Assuming the WPA is in accordance with the Constitution, the joint resolution Congress passed has some weaknesses.

First of all, it is VERY GENERAL. The president has been given the power to wage war against ANYONE HE decides was involved in 9/11. My question to you is how would you react if AlGore was the president? If GWB hasn't decided that that the war is over and another president takes office, does the war continue? Suppose the president decides that a domestic group, say the Militia of Montana or even the NRA was involved, can he use the military against them?

If a new Congress decides the 'War' is over, does the president have to withdraw our troops? From where? Who decides?

If you fail to see the inherent danger in this, us conservatives are in deep do-do.