CONGRESS DID DECLARE WAR! Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists

U.S. Congress ^ | 9/14/2001 | U.S. Congress

[SunStar]

Let's all re-read the Congressional Joint Resolution of September 14, 2001.

I'm sick and tired of all the supposed conservative Constitutional "defenders" (and plenty of Leftists as well) who continue to argue that President Bush is not entitled to War Powers, that he is acting in an inappropriate matter, that he is making "arbitrary" rules and regulations up as he goes, and that our Constitution is in jeopardy because Congress did not "Declare War".

Case in point: This was posted by a Freeper yesterday:

Yes War powers are in effect - without a war vote. Constitutional power is NO LONGER in effect. There'll be a lot more crying in the future, perhaps even you and your fellow Bill of Rights shredders. Too late by then tho. Enjoy it - while you can.

This is an example of a supposed conservative, who thinks President Bush is a dictator! Excuse me, but I think we are at war! Congress did in fact declare war. One can attempt to make a semantic argument over the title of the resolution, but the resolution itself says it all. I suggest that everyone keep a copy of this document handy, since the bogus "Congress did not declare war" argument is being used by the Left on a daily basis. The argument is faulty, and those who use it should be called on it. Congress did fact authorized President Bush to do exactly what he is doing -- make war on the enemy, and work to stop future attacks.

-SunStar

---

JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTS

September 14, 2001

This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

---

From "The War Powers Act of 1973"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a)

Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1)

from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2)

from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

[SunStar]

Maybe we can stop arguing amongst ourselves on this issue and get back to business? (One can only hope...)

[Hugin]

In fact our first two wars following the ratification of the Constitution were undeclared, at least on our part. The first was the naval Quasi-War with France that lasted from 1797 to 1799. The second was the war with the Barbary Pirates. There was a DOW in that one--sort of. On May 10th, 1801 the pasha of Tripoli "declared war" on the USA by chopping down the flagstaff in front of our consulate there. About the same time a naval squadron was sent with orders to determine whether a state of war existed with the Barbary Pirates and take action against them if it did. I have seen it stated on FR that the US Congress did declare war on the Barbary Pirates, but I haven't ever seen any documentation of that. If someone has such documentation I would like to see it. It seems that niether John Adams nor Thomas Jefferson saw any need to go to Congress for an official DOW once we had been attacked, because an act of war against us automatically created a state of war.

[NormsRevenge]

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Seems pretty clear to me that we are at war and Bush can act as necessary to defend our nation and its interests. All the flag haters and undercover liebral radicals are coming out from under their rocks. That is the sad part to see so many supposed american citizens act like our country is the enemy and the root of all evil in the world today. It does draw some clear battle lines. Congre$$ skrews up and does the right thing sometimes.. Ok, Not Often, but this is clear.. We ARE At War.

[SunStar]

FindLaw.com: THE WAR POWER Source and Scope
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/41.html

An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . ." But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.

[agitator]

A long string of bogus approaches to something fails to make it legitimate. A resolution is merely an expression of opinion. It carries less weight than an ordnance, much less an Act. It would be nice if folks would look up a legal dictionary at the same time they start quoting law. I have absolutely no problem with giving the people responsible for 911 "the measure, and more than the measure" that they have given to us but do it by the book, that's what it's there for.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Big, extra big hug and kiss. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Have even been hashing this one out at home. I said I wouldn'g write in again, but thank you, thank you, thank you.

[dpwiener]

Thank you for the historical background. I'm one of those who think that Congress should have officially declared war, so that there could be no question about whether the Constitutional requirement had been fulfilled. Furthermore, there was no persuasive reason not to have officially declared war, thereby avoiding a lot of legal disputes.

Nonetheless, a plausible argument can be made that the Congressional resolution you quoted is the functional equivalent of a "declaration of war" even if those exact words were not used. Certainly it goes a long way towards satisfying the underlying rationale for a declaration of war, namely, that it should be the decision of Congress rather than a single individual (the President) to formally commit our nation to military hostilities.

[FreeTally]

And as much as people want to believe this "resolution" holds the legal, constitutional force of decalring war, it doesn't. Plain and simple.

[SunStar]

A resolution is merely an expression of opinion. It carries less weight than an ordnance, much less an Act. It would be nice if folks would look up a legal dictionary at the same time they start quoting law.

Make excuses all you want, but this "Joint Resolution" expressed the full will of BOTH HOUSES of Congress. It SPECIFICALLY authorizes President Bush to use Executive War Powers, like it or not.

[Austin Willard Wright]

What standard do you use to decide when this "war" ends? If your answer is "when terrorism is eliminated" (an impossibly utopian goal) then the expanded powers of the imperial presidency (including those exercised by future Presidents Hillary Clinton and Al Gore) will be eternal won't it?

[NormsRevenge]

Re: the "book" - The Socialist agenda over the last 70 some years has muddied folks ability to read much less interpret and comprehend the meaning. Now, it would appear you want us to drop books on our enemies (Kiddin' here !) .. instead of bombs.

I was gonna have a nice quiet day watching US Open Golf but I guess I'll keep multi-tasking :-)

[jae471]

I don't know the feelings of Adams, but the Senate did not want to declare war with the Pirates because they felt that would be giving the pirates too much respect. Jefferson, on the other hand, was ready to enter into a "Confederacy" with the European states to fight the common threat of the pirates (The great-grandfather of NATO?). The European states declined, thinking it was cheaper to pay tribute than to fight a war.

[agitator]

The Constitution and the law is not an excuse. You just don't get it - or don't want to get it. "To hell with the legal dictionary, specifically defined legal words mean whatever I want them to mean when I want them to mean it!" - apparently that's your joint resolution and it carries just as much authority as the resolution at issue.

[SunStar]

Furthermore, there was no persuasive reason not to have officially declared war, thereby avoiding a lot of legal disputes.

My understanding is that there would be no insurance payouts, including to the owner of the WTC, if there was an "official" declaration. By "official", I mean with by using the title "Declaration of War". However, the wording in the Joint Resolution is not my any means vague. It is clear that Congress FULLY authorized the use of Military Force, and that the State of War already existed at the time of the Resolution.

[SunStar]

Nonetheless, a plausible argument can be made that the Congressional resolution you quoted is the functional equivalent of a "declaration of war" even if those exact words were not used. Certainly it goes a long way towards satisfying the underlying rationale for a declaration of war, namely, that it should be the decision of Congress rather than a single individual (the President) to formally commit our nation to military hostilities.

Correct.

..."the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

[FreeTally]

Nonetheless, a plausible argument can be made that the Congressional resolution you quoted is the functional equivalent of a "declaration of war" even if those exact words were not used.

Pure meecrob. Congress is required to declare war with a 2/3 vote and give a "declaration of war". When one has to spend hours stringing together opinions on this and that to explain why the resolution was the same as declaring war, when Congress should have just declared war, it is a prime example of mental yoga. Hell, they could dealre war right now, thus ending any and every legal dispute over the detention of persons helping the enemy.

There are several reasons why war wasnt declared. Among them are include the relationship of decalred war and the nullification of insurance policies. The second is that they typicallu need to name a country, and didn't want to name Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Thirdly, the gooberment needed an undending war to forward their orwellian plans.

[SunStar]

What standard do you use to decide when this "war" ends? If your answer is "when terrorism is eliminated" (an impossibly utopian goal) then the expanded powers of the imperial presidency (including those exercised by future Presidents Hillary Clinton and Al Gore) will be eternal won't it?

When Congress declares the State of War over and the Joint Resolution is officially rescinded, I'd say that would be the official end of the war.

[tracer]

Not to nit-pick, but it is my understanding that the official name of the nation against which war is to be waged is a necessary part of a declaration of war......

[cgbg]

stop arguing against ourselves.
I have no argument with you. :-)

I have a major argument with our gutless Congress that so far has refused a declaration of war.

I am tired of their dumb excuses.

The more interesting question is:

What heinous act would it take to get Congress to declare war? How many Americans would have to be killed? And when will Americans be asked to arm themselves to protect themselves and their families instead of relying of the government to "take care of them."

[SunStar]

The Constitution and the law is not an excuse. You just don't get it - or don't want to get it. "To hell with the legal dictionary, specifically defined legal words mean whatever I want them to mean when I want them to mean it!" - apparently that's your joint resolution and it carries just as much authority as the resolution at issue.

I know you think you are the Constitution's defender, but I would think that both houses of Congress and the President would tend to disagree with you, and that their Joint Resolution clearly expresses their will and position on this matter.