The words that give Bush the Authority.

UN / US Congress ^ | 3-9-03 | OXENinFLA

[Dr. Frank fan]

Oh, and this article may interest you. Best,

[William Terrell]

And presumably you'll recall that the War Powers Resolution was based on the authority granted Congress by Article 1, Section 8.

I recall nothing of the sort. The War Powers resolution is a resolution, not a declaration of war under 1-8-11. A declaration of war is a one time declaration of Congress authorizing the nation to prosecute war. The War Powers resolution was an attempt to transfer Article 1 Sect 8 powers to the executive and is blantently unconstitutional.

Also notice this resolution had no enacting clause, therefore it is not based on constitutional powers. I'm glad you got a chuckle from the article I linked. Evidently you are in a rather a tight spot with your belief that the Congress has delcared war.

It hasn't, neither by this resolution nor by the War Powers act. Again I will be happy to acknowledge that Congress declared war and will support that act. I see no evidence they have. All I see is an ongoing attempt to evade political responsibility.

[William Terrell]

"The case before us is a somber and weighty one. We have considered these important concerns carefully, and we have concluded that the circumstances call for judicial restraint," Judge Sandra Lynch wrote in the ruling.

In his ruling last month, Tauro said a federal court can judge the war policies of political branches of government only when actions taken by Congress and the president are in "resolute" conflict -- a situation that he said did not exist at the time.

Look again. Nothing is said on whether Congress declared war under the constituion or not, just that the court restrains themselves from reviewing the issue. Matter of fact, if you wish to read anything into these plain vanilla comments, it would be that Congress did not declare war under 1-81-11.

This court wimped out. They most certainly could have reviewed the issue. They knew they would have to take judicial notice of the unconstitutional attempt to transfer Article 1 powers to a branch governed under Article 2.

That's a very unPC can of worms and no court wants to open it.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The War Powers resolution is a resolution, not a declaration of war under 1-8-11.

It's true that the War Powers resolution of 1973 was not a declaration of war against anyone. What it was was a clarification of the war powers arrangement between the executive and legislative branches, based on the idea that Congress may pass all laws "necessary and proper" to the executing of their powers.

One of those powers being to declare War, of course.

The War Powers resolution was an attempt to transfer Article 1 Sect 8 powers to the executive and is blantently unconstitutional.

It's "blantently" [sic] unconstitutional, eh? Well, I'll have to take your word for it, because the courts have never quite shared your view. Let me know if/when they ever change their mind and you get your way. Till then, there's really not a whole lot more for us to talk about is there?

Evidently you are in a rather a tight spot with your belief that the Congress has delcared war.

How's this put me in a tight spot? We'll see the war soon enough.

I see no evidence they have [declared a war].

The evidence will consist of the dead Iraqi soldiers and buildings turned to rubble in Iraq. To say anything else is to deny reality. Words should describe reality. And "war" will be the reality, very soon.

All I see is an ongoing attempt to evade political responsibility.

I thought all you saw was UN crap?

Anyway, believe it or not, I agree with you 100% on this point. You are probably correct that there is an ongoing attempt to evade political responsibility. Best,

[William Terrell]

Thank you. I'm getting to the point where I'll have to repeat myself. See you on some other issue.