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 Constitutional power is NO LONGER in effect.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.

[FreeTally]

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.

The Constitution mentions nothing of a "joint resolutions" amd "full will", but it does prescribe the exact way the country is to decalre war, which has not been done. Nor does the constitution describe any way for Congress to grant the President "Executive War Powers" in any other way than an official declaration of war. Like it, or not, you are wrong, and the government is yet again violating the constitution.

[NormsRevenge]

How about until Evil is eradicated ..period ... That ought to keep us busy for awhile.

Does it really matter? I feel we have been at war for years but Clinton did little to nothing to fight the enemies who seek our and Israle's destruction, rather it appears he has supported the actions of our enemies by his own malfeasance and irresponsible and ill-aimed actions in office

Too many in here seem to suggest, that nations, groups and individuals who fly airliners into civilian and military buildings are OK as they only intended to send us a message about quit supporting Israel, or would you concede that maybe they just don't like us at all and will do all they can worldwide to harass and destroy and kill anyone like us?

Pacifism does not save nations

[SunStar]

Pure meecrob. Congress is required to declare war with a 2/3 vote and give a "declaration of war".

They passed the Joint Resolution 99-1. The actual State of War was declared by our enemies on September 11th, 2001. You do remember the attacks, don't you? I'd say they were a pretty good indication that a State of War existed.

[SunStar]

Thirdly, the gooberment needed an undending war to forward their orwellian plans.

Glad you clarified that. LOL

[Austin Willard Wright]

Certainly, but can you name any power-seeking president (and they all love power) who would actually ask Congress to repeal such a resolution? This resolution is totally subjective, has no time limit, or no standard for declaring "victory."

I'll tell you one thing: Presidents Gore and Hillary Clinton would never ask for repeal such a vast grant of power. I wonder if conservatives will be as forgiving as them when they exercise these "justly granted" powers.

[freeeee]

Fact: Congress began to draft a real declaration of war on September 12, and was asked by the administration to drop the measure.

An open ended "use of force" resolution is not a congressional declaration of war, no matter how many times you say it.

You are attempting to rewrite history and you're doing it in the wrong place. People around here have a better memory than most of the sheeple, and we're going to call every history revision we see. You would do well to remember that.

[agitator]

Like I said,...

[monkeyshine]

I guess I agree. It is pretty unamiguous. Just because they didn't call it a "declaration of war" doesn't mean it isn't one.

[sheltonmac]

Comments?

[SunStar]

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......

Tell that to the Barbary Pirates... (See Post #4)

[FreeTally]

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,

You know, most of us Americans don't give a flying f%&k what the President or Congress thinks. I can read the Constitution - its pretty clear on the issue, and they are violating the constitution.

and that their Joint Resolution clearly expresses their will and position on this matter.

Again, I couldn't care less about their "will and position". My will is for freedom and my position may have to end up kneeling and aiming.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Who are "our enemies?" If you are referring to Bin Laden, we would agree but the "war" was not declared against him as such but against a grab-bag of "terrorism" (presumably including the Tamil tigers, Basque separatists, various Liberian thugs, and various commies and drug lords in Columbia).

[SunStar]

You are attempting to rewrite history and you're doing it in the wrong place. People around here have a better memory than most of the sheeple, and we're going to call every history revision we see. You would do well to remember that.

Thanks for the advice....

However, I can see with my own eyes that a State of War exists, and that the Congress approved the use of military force. I am sick of people saying "we're not at war".

[Centurion2000]

Thanks for the post. The only thing different from this and a Declaration of War seems to be that the peaceniks can protest all they want and not be arrested for sedition.

[NormsRevenge]

BullPuckie ... Some of you'se folks just don't get it..We ARE At War..We didn't ask for it, we didn't want it, but we will shur as the hell fight it wherever and whenever we can. Some are just tired alread and it has only really begun. The Middle East has been the source of all too mnaytragedies for this nation and now we are seeing folks in here who want to stick their heads in the Constitution and lawbooks and let our enemies have their way.

Way to go , Guys, Let go of the Constitution, It isn' bullet-proof.

This is why the War Powers Act is such a sore spot for so many.

[FreeTally]

They passed the Joint Resolution 99-1. The actual State of War was declared by our enemies on September 11th, 2001. You do remember the attacks, don't you? I'd say they were a pretty good indication that a State of War existed.

We are at war when congress decalres war. Thats the only way the Prez gets Executive War Powers. We were at a "state of war' when the Japs bombed Peral Harbor, but Congress declared war. Why? They recongized they had no other option.

[Austin Willard Wright]

The Barbary pirates analogy doesn't wash. Jefferson went to war against them not all the "pirates" in the world for eternity.

[SunStar]

Who are "our enemies?" If you are referring to Bin Laden, we would agree but the "war" was not declared against him as such but against a grab-bag of "terrorism" (presumably including the Tamil tigers, Basque separatists, various Liberian thugs, and various commies and drug lords in Columbia).

I believe the enemy is "terrorist groups of global reach".

[no-s]

If they can't declare war straight up, I want my letters of Marque & Reprisal!

[RightWhale]

Congress did not declare war, and such a declaration was not necessary since a state of war already existed by an act of war by an enemy. War was declared on America and Congress authorized [and funded] the President to take the war back to the enemy. Yes, America is at war now whether America declared war or not.