Posted on 06/14/2002 10:22:22 AM PDT by 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 Constitutional power is NO LONGER in effect.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
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
Bingo!
There's a word for that: Surrender.
Anytime the government does not follow the constitution by the letter, and makes up some specious argument to get to the same end without following the constitution, we must be very wary.
When they attack us in an Act of War, then they have declared war on us. Until then, I'd say we should stick to the terrorist groups who have already attacked us.
Cool! Lets get the IRA.
Oh, they are not a target? Huh!?
Slow down, hoss. You said, "I believe the enemy is "terrorist groups of global reach". Now, its only if they attack us. So its pretty much whoever King George tells the pesants it is, right?
When's the last time the IRA bombed anyone outside of the UK?
The War Powers Act is unconstitutional as it rearranges the constitutionally designated method in which the different branches of government can wage war. Mainly, it allows the executive to declare and wage war independent of the legislature.
For such a radical redesign of government to be legitimate, it would have to have been passed as a constitutional amendment. It was not. Mere legislation is inferior to constitutional directives. Once upon a time, conservatives knew that.
Nice one. You sound just like Paul Begala. Good job.
TERRORISTS WHO ATTACKED US OR RELATED PERSONS AND NATIONS ARE OUR ENEMIES. GOT IT YET?
Doesn't the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make that determination?
You're getting close to the real issue here.
I would rephrase the question as "Why won't Congress declare war, and why doesn't the administration want them to?"
The administration didn't ask Congress to drop its pending declaration of war for no good reason. Are we afraid to ask why?
Is an insurance policy good enough reason to ingore the Constitution? We blow billions on everything under the sun, how about compensating the WTC owners if the insurance policy becomes invalid if Congress does its duty?
Or is there an even more insidious reason, one we're all wary of: A real declaration of war means that one day, war powers would end. And some people desperately don't want that to ever happen.
So, what you are implying is that since there is no state to blame, we cannot pursue our enemies?
Or is there an even more insidious reason, one we're all wary of: A real declaration of war means that one day, war powers would end. And some people desperately don't want that to ever happen.
Yep, and I think possibly the "insurance policy holders" go hand in hand with the questions that we don't want to ask. If the policies were null with a declaration of war, and the government(tax payers) didn't bail them out, then there would be thousands looking for the truth because of anger.
Not at all, which is the first conclusion people on your side want to jump to. The President just can not be granted Executive War Powers. It's that simple.
We know which countries support and harbor terrorists. IF the Prez and congress were serious about a war on terrorism that has a demonstrative end, then they would declare war on all of those countries.
No. Amendments are covered by article V, and nowhere does Article V list SCOTUS as being able to amend the Constitution.
Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Conservatives used to decry judicial activism. But as ususal, when it suits their purposes....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.