He needs no more.
Posted on 03/09/2003 6:21:17 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Consider this.
Here is the relevant excerpt:
In other words, Congressional silence - especially in military affairs, where the President wears the mantle of constitutionally delegated Commander-in-Chief - enables him to act unilaterally. Thus, if Congress is silent about an attack on Iraq, which so far it has been, there is no doubt that under Justice Jackson's Youngstown analysis, President Bush has the power to act unilaterally.I encourage you to read the whole article referenced above as it details the case very acurately.It is another story entirely if the President acts against the express, or even implied, wishes of Congress. He is then at the "lowest ebb" of his power.Then, according to Jackson, the President can - rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. [e.g., the the President's Article II power as Commander-in-Chief, versus Congress's Article I power to declare (but not make) war].
In the case of Iraq, however, whatever Congress has already done to authorize the President's actions (see the Joint Resolution), it is manifest that the Legislature - unlike in Youngstown, where Jackson found that seizure was contrary to the will of Congress - has done nothing to oppose military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.
By "trump" you mean "reinforce", correct?
Just because they didn't cite it doesn't mean they didn't use it. Congress rarely cites it authority to do what it does. Of course that's often because it doesn't have any. Not true in this case however.
What is "legislative fiat"? "Fiat" is not used that way; this is practically an oxymoron. Do you mean by act of Congress (i.e. legislation)? Uh, Congress most certainly can delegate to the President the authority for military action by passing legislation. In fact that is their Constitutional function, and that is precisely what they did, as the original poster has documented.
Of course personally, I am a whole lot more concerned about the so called USA PATRIOT ACT, Homeland Security Act, and the currently named USA PATRIOT ACT 2 than I am Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden
Of course you are.
Actually by my reading it does say that, just not in so many words.
All the resources of the country are hereby pledged. That is the one thing the Commander-in-Chief cannot do. Only We the People, acting through our Representatives in Congress assembled, can do so. As we should.
Point taken.
You must've skipped over the part where he excerpted H.J. Res. 114 (act of Congress, not "UN crap"). It's in the second half of the original post.
I feel the Presidential Oath gives him all the damned authority he needs.
As you said, "...from all enemies, foreign and domestic".
We've identified the enemy and their co-conspirators who want to kill innocent Americans by the millions. We have the military power to crush it...as it should be. Bush has the cajones and the backbone to exercise that power.
We'll leave Iraq a better place in the end. Am I dreaming? Will we instead see it be a competing front-page story ala Jews-vs-Palestinians for the next fifty years?
Pehaps the latter. And, so what?
It's better than the alternative.
We are very lucky to be born Americans. We are special people because we believe in a living Constitution and the Rule of Law. We are special because we are TRULY, the world's only Superpower.
If we allow the Democratic Party another 8 years of Clinton-type Foreign Policy, some of us won't survive the coming Holocaust from WMD.
The next six months are going to change the course of Human history as much as World history. I don't want to see the United States squander the blessings we've been given by using Appeasement instead of a hard slap across the head of anyone who needs it.
And the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, which they effectively did when they authorized the war powers resolution in the fall. So the system is working. What's the problem?
It seems to use UN mandates for authorization.
This is not a declaration of war. This is authorizing the president to follow UN mandates. As far as I understand, the federal constituion doesn't give Congress the power to order an enforcement of a foreign mandate.
If this order is constitutional, through a treaty for instance, then if the UN security council votes down war, the Congress must withdraw its authorization and the president must withdraw the troops.
I, personally don't want to go to war under a UN order. I want to go as an American nation under the powers of it's national constitution.
In particular, it authorizes him to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate". Another word for this is "war". "War" will certainly be the result if he takes advantage of this authorization. (Don't believe me? Just ask the Iraqi army in a week or three.)
You're complaining, I guess, that in this case they authorized him to wage war to (among other things) enforce UN mandates, as opposed to some other reason like revenge or to kill everybody whose name starts with the letter H or to make sure the opium trade lines stay open. Yup, that was a prominent listed purpose in authorizing him to wage war: to enforce some UN mandates. You don't like that. You wish they gave other reasons for authorizing war.
But nevertheless, whether you approve of their reasons and purposes or not, they effectively declared war against Iraq. Declaring war is what they did. And that is what the Constitution says they can do. (The Constitution doesn't, I might add, say that they can't declare war for reasons or purposes which William Terrell or Dr. Frank may find distasteful.)
As far as I understand, the federal constituion doesn't give Congress the power to order an enforcement of a foreign mandate.
I see no reason why Congress can't decide to enforce a foreign mandate, of its own volition, as long as it doesn't conflict with the US Constitution of course. (Which it does not, because the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to declare war, as I feel like I've said a dozen times now.)
If this order is constitutional, through a treaty for instance, then if the UN security council votes down war, the Congress must withdraw its authorization and the president must withdraw the troops.
So you're saying that Congressional power to declare war is subservient to the UN? You lost me here. What if Congress wants war either way? The war powers resolution didn't specify that Bush could only fight if the UN said ok. It said he could "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate". Now you're saying that if the UN says no, Congress magically loses its war powers? And you're the one claiming to care about the Constitution here?
I, personally don't want to go to war under a UN order.
So you're in the military? Allow me a brief time-out to thank you for your service then.
I want to go as an American nation under the powers of it's national constitution.
And you will be. (And Godspeed sir, and good luck.) Congress used its war powers to authorize military force, as is its right under the US constitution. Which part don't you get?
Everything Congress does has to be based in constitutional authority because (please read carefully here) the legislative branch was created by the constitution. Do you understand?
1-8-11 authorizes Congress to declare war. A declaration of war has a form. This legislation is not it. I'm so glad you're willing to overlook little nicities like form and citation of constitutional authority. Why, that means we have a living constitution and fully within the power of the branches, authorized by God Himself, to determine what they want it to allow them to do.
That means I won't be burdened with being a responsible American much longer; I can just turn the whole shebang over to the legislative, executive and judicial folks. Hey, why do we need a constitution, anyway? We got the UN, don't we?
How should I know? Maybe because it's so obvious that it's implied. I thought, and maybe Congress thought, that everyone already knew that Congress had the power to authorize war. Maybe they thought it went without saying. But who knows what goes through the heads of Congressmen? Not me.
Everything Congress does has to be based in constitutional authority because (please read carefully here) the legislative branch was created by the constitution. Do you understand?
Yes. And this war declaration, like all others, was based in constitutional authority. Specifically the part of the Constitution where it says that Congress has the power to declare war. Do you understand?
1-8-11 authorizes Congress to declare war. A declaration of war has a form. This legislation is not it.
Kindly enlighten me: which part of the Constitution specifies that a war declaration has to have a certain specific "form"? Ah, that's your trouble isn't it, O Brave Constitution Defender. You can't actually find a place in the Constitution to support your position, now, can you?
The resolution as written sure looks like a declaration of war to me. Declaration: "the act of declaring : ANNOUNCEMENT". War: "a state of usually open and declared [=announced, see previous definition] armed hostile conflict between states or nations". The resolution effectively announced to the President and to the world our Congress's intent to authorize the President to use military force, i.e. to engage in warfare.
Sorry, but that's a declaration of war, buddy. Ask Saddam in a week or three.
I'm so glad you're willing to overlook little nicities like form
Good. Especially since the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about "form".
and citation of constitutional authority
Again, why do you so desperately need this "citation" of constitutioanl authority? Is there any doubt that Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war? Who doesn't know this? Are you saying that you don't know this, and that you need a reminder?
Why, that means we have a living constitution and fully within the power of the branches, [...bla...]
Hey, you're the one who has squinted your eyes and found that the Constitution requires declarations of war to take a certain specific "form", not me. So apparently you're the one who's made the Constitution "live and breathe". All I've done is point out that the Constitution authorizes Congress to declare wars. Which they did, as is their explicit Constitutional power. I don't even know what you're arguing about, frankly.
Hey, why do we need a constitution, anyway? We got the UN, don't we?
Actually, that does seem to be what you think, since you've already stated that you believe if the UN votes down a second resolution then our Congress suddenly magically loses its authority to declare wars for some reason. I'm still scratching my head over that one....
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.