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 Constitutional power is NO LONGER in effect.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
We have failed to do this for too long, we will pay the price
Wheee!!! Let go of the Constitution should we? Tell me, why bother fighting then? What exactly would we be fighting for? Safety? Freedom? You let go of the Constitution and you'll have one of them I promise you. In the past, the United States have steered away from the Constitution and in every instance the excuse given was for some greater cause whether it be 'saving the union' or 'extending freedom from our shores'. And in every instance, EVERY ONE!! more freedoms have been taken away from the citizens of the respective states that belong to this union. All for 'greater good'. Thanks, but no thanks. I kind of like my freedom, I like being able to say what I feel and go where I go without the general government following me every step of the way. Like they don't do that already!!
The Constitution says whatever the judges say it says today. It could say something else tomorrow. And unless you are the 9 supreme court justices what you say it says isn 't worth a warm pitcher of spit.
The Supreme court in Marbury Vs Madison said the constituion says what the justices say it says. And they can determine what it says in any old penumbra they care to look under.
The president of the United States can do anything the people will support including puting american citizens in concentration camps in WWII or suspending Habeas Corpus as Lincoln did in the civil war.
The Democracy Advocates (Democrats) converted us into the Democracy we have been ever since.
Yep! Just like the constitution points out. We are evil people, I tell 'ya.
Terrorism has existed since the beginning of time. It is caused by fanatics responding to foreign governments poking their noses into the affairs of other countries.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
What nation should we declare war against?
Um no. We want a declaration of war. Usually that is followed by lots of our solders killing the enemy. Declaring war isn't "turning the other cheek", ya think?
if it was insurance driven, so be it
We ignore the Constitution, paid for with the blood of our founders, over a freakin insurance policy, and you're ok with that. I think I'm going to be sick.
This Orwellian talk
Oh, there's some Orwellian talk going on alright. "War is Peace". That's the message here. Unofficial, unending war is the entire cornerstone of "1984". Here, read it for yourself:
That's not what I was referring to. The SCOTUS decides if new laws are Constitutional. They have repeatedly ruled on this issue in the past, but people like you refuse to agree with any law made past the 1780's.
Lets see, Afganistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Omen, Rowanda, Somali just to name a few. The entire world should join in if terrorism is such a big threat.
Yeah, those pesky Japanese-American internment camps are still running 50 years after-the-fact! This is an outrage! [/Sarcasm]
A resolution isn't even a law. It has no force of law in any manner.
That makes two of us, and the rest of his posts are not helping the situation.
However, this is where the Declaration of Independence kicks in. We may be in practice ruled by SCOUTUS, and other branches independent of the Constitution, but such rule is illegitimate.
All political power is held by the People and exercised through the Consent of the Governed. You can read the rest of the DoI, and get the picture.
Yes, but it expresses the will of Congress, which is the key point here. Both houses of Congress AGREED and FULLY AUTHORIZED the use of military force. PERIOD.
But do the terrorists control the governments there, or are they merely part of a network? This is not as simple as the Japs bombing Pearl Harbor.
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.