[Carry_Okie]

This is a war specifically against Iraq, not a military action against terrorism in general. I think that distinction points to a legal requirement to declare war. It would be the first time since the founding of the UN, and in that sense would be peculiarly appropriate.

Any Congress unwilling to make that formal declaration deserves what it gets. Besides, it would be a wonderful opportunity to see little tommy squirm and bring out the Hildabeast to show her for what she is. They would also have to publicly drop that filibuster. :-)

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

"This is a war specifically against Iraq, not a military action against terrorism in general. I think that distinction points to a legal requirement to declare war. It would be the first time since the founding of the UN, and in that sense would be peculiarly appropriate."

Actually they gave him power to go to war with any nation that harbor and aid terriorests. I think that would include Iraq, France, and Germany.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...This is a war specifically against Iraq, not a military action against terrorism in general.

There were two authorizations. The second names Iraq.

If the first is legal (it is) then the second is also. You cannot have it both ways.

The Court ruled in the Padilla case that the authorization for war is the legal equivelant of a declaration of war. the court defers to congress to word it how they want.

They used a precedent from 1800. They didn't just make it up.