Does a President have the Constitutional Authority to initiate a Military Conflict?

Sierra Times ^ | 3/17/03 | Robert Greenslade

[Ahban]

This resoulution is hardly a declaration of war, just Congress passing the buck on its duty in a way that could bite us in the future. It sets Bush up. The dems will say "we did not authorize THAT".

Notice section two, which sets the context for the authorization, GOES STRICTLY THROUGH THE U.N.!

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

In section three, notice again that enforcement of UN resolutions are the key. It says "and", not "or", as in both requirements must be met to allow the President to use force. They are setting him up if things go wrong.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

As to the following, there is an "or" in this part, but note the connecting "and" between sections one and two of the following. Without a solid link between Saddam and the 911 maggots, this passage too is suspect.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Words mean things. This is not a declaration of war that will take us into conflict a united people. This is congressional weasal wording that is desinged to let the dems share credit if things go right, and blame Bush if things go wrong.

[TomB]

This is not a declaration of war that will take us into conflict a united people.

Regardless, it is a declaration of war in the legal sense (see the post above yours).

And, IIRC, the support for this war (~70%) is higher than any in history. We've never been completely united going to war.

[hobbes1]

Yes, Ahban words have meanings. Words Like....

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.....(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

That is exactly what he is doing. They cannot cry foul, because they gave him language that they, in retrospect, do not like.

As to sec.3(b)1(B) He has already said flat out and more than once, and more importantly, correctly, that the UN is not enforcing it's own sanctions.

[vaudine]

Comment:
1. Alexander Hamilton's was a hothead and his views got him killed in a duel.However, his views make sense as presented here.
2. That said--Congress stopped short of a War Declaration, but did vote authority for the Pres. to use force.
3. There is plenty of precedent to follow-Haiti, Bosnia,etc.
4. If the Pres. is illegal, and following illegal precedent, you could also say the Senate is illegally obstructing the Estrada nomination. Do something about one, do something about the other.
5. We have been attacked, and I, for one, have no trouble connecting the dots. It is not as though the Pres. threw darts at a world map just to find a country to invade.

Where is the Duuh! alert for this article?

vaudine

[TomB]

That said--Congress stopped short of a War Declaration, but did vote authority for the Pres. to use force.

What's the difference?

[dirtboy]

The Constitution requires that the President give a State of the Union address. It does not require that he turn it into live media circus, and Bush chose to deliver a letter instead of a speech for his first such address. Likewise, the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war - it does not specify exactly how that is to be done - and since Congress authorized the President to use force against Iraq, I really don't see what the point is here.

[marron]

This is not a new war. We have been engaged for twelve years. This is a twelve-year-old conflict, that we are now bringing to a close.

We have been boarding ships in the Gulf, we have been facing missile fire daily for years, we have been bombing Iraqi missile and radar installations for years, we have been obliged to maintain an enormous force in the theater.

It is time to finish it.

[Protagoras]

It's always wonderful when liberals discover that we actally do have a Constitution.

Conservatives like the constitution too. Sometimes.

[realpatriot71]

Ha! The question should be: "does it even matter anymore?"

"Principles! We don nee no stinkin' principles!"

[Mr. Jeeves]

Bush doesn't need it, but I wish he would ask Congress for a formal declaration of war against Iraq. It would force a lot of those waffling weasels to take a stand.

[Protagoras]

This is a twelve-year-old conflict, that we are now bringing to a close.

Good plan huh?

[rmlew]

I agree. We do need to declare war.

[vaudine]

Semantics.
vaudine

[Ahban]

I hope you guys are right. Only time will tell.

[SuziQ]

Does a President have the Constitutional Authority to initiate a Military Conflict as Commander in Chief?

Well it's a moot point, since Congress voted Pres. Bush that authority on Iraq last year!

[Van Jenerette]

...for Government class.

[ohioman]

All those against this war need to shut their mouths or watch their backs.

[perfect stranger]

Klintoon did it first.

[Eagle Eye]

It is time to finish it.

My part here may not be big, but that's what I'm here to do, help finish it.