Posted on 08/22/2002 6:44:48 AM PDT by KLT
Then you will understand if I don't change my position on an American invasion of Iraq until someone releases information verifying a substantial conection between Al Queda and Iraq.
Would Atta and company have gained entry into the United States when Bush (41) and Reagan were president?
What - you want folks like x42 & #97, Reno et al to singlehandedly have the power to invade a foreign country, or to send Reno into Waco to slaughter men, women and children? Should a President have the power to send armed forces against another Randy Weaver over a specious charge, and kill his child, dog and wife simply on a whim?
Where in the Constitution does it grant power to kidnap a child from his home with military forces a la Elian Gonzalez, abandoning Constitutional methods of resolving disputes. We have a judiciary for a reason, to rule on matters in doubt:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases ... between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."Again, I have no problem with the President defending our country - that's his function. Attacking and invading a foreign nation is not defense - it's offensive. And for that, Congress must declare war.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
The courts have jurisdiction, now have they ever answered this very question? The section of the Constitution granting the power claimed is in Article I, which states that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Numerous decisions by SCOTUS have held that the exercise of enumerated powers contained in Article I cannot be delegated, or suspended. Amomg them ex parte Merryman, ex parte Milligan, the Prize Cases, Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout and others.
Please note that I highlighted the term "vested" in Article I. To vest means to grant an absolute right (present and future). But rather than you accept my word on it, how about I allow the words of US Supreme Court Justice John Jay speak instead?
The same expression, "shall be vested," occurs in other parts of the Constitution in defining the powers of the other coordinate branches of the Government. The first article declares that "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Will it be contended that the legislative power is not absolutely vested? that the words merely refer to some future act, and mean only that the legislative power may hereafter be vested? The second article declares that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Could Congress vest it in any other person, or is it to await their good pleasure whether it is to vest at all? It is apparent that such a construction, in either case, would be utterly inadmissible."
Justice Jay, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, (1816)
Freegards.
This has been an interesting thread, nevertheless.
You truly need to stop reading what everyone said about everything two hundred years ago, and try learning a few things about today.
You can start by reading a little about the War Powers Resolution.
Which by the way, is what we're discussing here. So, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elian Gonzalez, asides from being a formidable set of grievances, and an indictment on government amuck, are little more than an attempt to hide the basic question behind emotions, and rethorical smoke and mirrors.
"Congress must declare war"
Actually, Congress has the power to declare war, they're not obligated to do it.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the president, in his role as Commander In Chief, has the power to order immediate military action when faced with an attack on the US. In other words, the president doesn't have to call a special session of congress to ask them to please allow him to address the fact that there are a few hundred ChiCom nukes headed our way.
With all due respect to the Founders, I don't think they could have foretold the speed and efficiency of today's war machines.
The WPR forces the president to come before Congress before retaliating in the name of defense against the perpetrator of the attack however. After the President has taken the proper steps to handle the immediate urgency of repelling an attack, Congress then decides what further military action is merited in this case, but it isn't limited to a declared war. An action which gives the president, in his role as Commander In Chief, extraordinary powers.
There is a lot more in the WPR that gives Congress a tighter reign over the president's ability to use the US Armed Forces, then the other way around. Which is why Nixon was against it.
"The courts have jurisdiction, now have they ever answered this very question?"
See, this is what I mean.
Perhaps by paying a little more attention to what's going on today, rather than what went on in the 19th Century, you would know the answer to that.
I'm sure you'll have fun finding the answer to that question.
Luis--21st Century
It does no such thing.
I know that the evidence MUST exist if Bush goes before Congress to ask financing for further actions, he's required to have a reason why it is needed. But's that's a far cry from my saying that I have knowledge of that proof.
"If President Bush presents compelling evidence of Iraqi involvment in 9/11, then I will support the invasion."
By inserting the word "compelling", you have clarified your position on the issue.
The issue here is not so much whether Bush has the proof or not, but rather whether you will accept it.
I suspect that regardless of what it is, you won't accept it.
"He works for us and we pay the bills."
And, if we don't like the way he performs his job, we get the opportunity to fire him every four years or so, unless he's done something sufficiently bad to warrant Congress growing a backbone, and throwing his butt out.
Thank God for the fact that we get to vote every four years, and are not obligated to wait for that to happen.
"I will oppose the invasion unless Bush presents compelling evidence of Iraqi involvment in 9/11.
You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble, and stopped after the fifth word.
I know that the evidence MUST exist if Bush goes before Congress to ask financing for further actions, he's required to have a reason why it is needed. But's that's a far cry from my saying that I have knowledge of that proof.
Can anyone spot the inconsistency here?
Yes.
The issue here is not so much whether Bush has the proof or not, but rather whether you will accept it.
The issue is that the Bush administration has not presented the case for American intervention.
I suspect that regardless of what it is, you won't accept it.
Once again, you would be wrong. I supported the war in Afghanistan because the Bush administration made a strong case for American intervention. I will do the same if the Bush administration presents a strong argument for American intervention in Iraq.
I don't blindly follow my political leaders.
Luis, you may want to start using reason. It may work.
I think he's watching too much CBS News...
Nope, I don't understand....All you have to do is connect the dots, and what's substancial mean? You want a video tape? How about audio tapes? Want hair and fibers?
Bush will make his compelling case, without giving away all details...MARK MY WORDS!
You need to chill...and to realize we have not seen the end of the attacks on us...my friend...this is just the beginning...and Iraq who hates us like poison...and lies through their collective blood soaked teeth, are involved up to their eyeballs...
World Tribune | 7/15/02
Posted on 07/16/2002 9:37 AM Eastern by truthandlife
The United States believes Iraq has distributed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Al Qaida and other Islamic militants.
"It is likely that chemical weapons, biological weapons in the possession of the Iraqis . . . are now being disseminated to terrorists," Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, said.
Pearle warned that Iraq is coordinating with Al Qaida on plans to attack the United States, Middle East Newsline reported.
"This evidence is very powerful," Perle said. "There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, which means to destroy us. It entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application. And he's working on nuclear weapons. The message is very clear: We have no time to lose, Saddam must be removed from office." Perle, a former assistant defense secretary, chairs a group that advises the Pentagon on national security issues. He is regarded as a leading proponent of a U.S. military campaign against Baghdad.
U.S. officials said the Bush administration has been warned of the prospect that the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has issued biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida and its allies in an attempt to deter any military campaign by Washington. The officials said Iraq hopes that the weapons, obtained during the Cold War with help from the Soviet Union, will be sent from the Middle East to Western Europe and the United States.
In an interview on U.S. PBS network, Perle said the Saddam regime has launched cooperation with Al Qaida in planning WMD attacks against the United States. He criticized a State Department report released earlier this year that did not cite such cooperation.
U.S. officials said Iraq has been bolstering its biological and chemical weapons programs over the last two years. They cite new information from an Iraqi defector who has told the Defense Intelligence Agency of more than 30 biological weapons facilities in Iraq.
The officials said Israel as well as U.S. troops in the Middle East are under greatest threat of Iraqi WMD. The officials said Baghdad might have weaponized such agents as anthrax and botulinum poison.
But Perle said that with Al Qaida cooperation Iraq could launch biological or chemical weapons attacks in the United States. He said Iraq is also working on new unspecified means of WMD delivery.
"The target could be the United States," Perle said. "It could be Americans abroad; it could be American forces deployed now in the region, and it could the Israelis or the Saudis. He has the capacity to do great damage, and at any moment he may do so."
Here we go ProudAmerican2....here's just a taste...
Something more substantial than an alleged meeting Atta and an Iraqi government agent.
Bush will make his compelling case, without giving away all details...MARK MY WORDS!
Then I will support the invasion.
You need to chill...and to realize we have not seen the end of the attacks on us...my friend...this is just the beginning...and Iraq who hates us like poison...and lies through their collective blood soaked teeth, are involved up to their eyeballs...
Still waiting for the evidence before I support American intervention.
And Scott Ritter thinks Iraq does not pose a threat.
I've done my homework. Have you?
Yeah, right...
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.