Tell me, why do you think only the UN security council was cited as authorization to give the president the power to prosecute war? It would have been so easy to include the constitutional authority, wouldn't it? Why wasn't it? 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....
This is not a declaration of war. Go take a look at other declarations of war. This is Congress authorizing the executive to use force to enforce a UN mandate. The only authority I see mentioned in this legislation is the UN.
Maybe I'm old, but I was taught this in school. Where did you go to school?
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....
Let me make it clear. If the Congress is relying on UN authority in making this legislation, then it must likewise submit to the same authority if the UN say no, otherwise all this is arbitrary and begs the question, why do we even need laws.
The burden of proof is on you. There is no indication anywhere in thelegislation that 1-8-11 was the authority behind it, and that it was enacted using 1-8-11 as constitutional authority.
Congress has a history, a great one in recent history, for passing unconstitutional laws. In light of that history, the presumption is this is not based on the federal constitution.
Show me where it was, and how it was. You can't because it wasn't, neither by its form or its content. Any authority for Congress to do such a thing would come from a treaty or agreement with the UN. And I don't want the UN running our lives, especially sending our people to war.
If Congress wants to defend the country from a threat, let them do it by the book.
Again, what's your educational background and when?
