Posted on 09/14/2002 5:32:18 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
He runs the libertarian "Future of Freedom Foundation".
It's online at www.fff.org
Congress gave President Bush the authority to take what ever action he saw fit to deal with these terrorist. That is all the consitutional authority the President requires.
You are reduced to playing word games.
A state of war can exist, even without the Congress formally declaring it.
The only legal reason is a Congressional Declaration of War.
To: exodus
It doesn't matter how loud you yell, you're still wrong.
"The War Powers Act of 1973"
# 98 by jwalsh07
Gracious, a link would have worked much better, jwalsh07
The War Powers Act is un-Constitutional. Congress does not have the authority to delegate ANY legislative power to the Executive branch.
Regardless, I've already read the War Powers Act, and it doesn't say what you think it says.
It DOES NOT give the President power to wage war as he sees fit. It is a LIMITATION on the war powers already usurped by Presidential officeholders since WW 2. It passed over the veto of President Nixon, and has been disregarded by every President since it's passage, including both Presidents Bush.
The President is limited to 8 months of un-sanctioned military action, and then, "...the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces..." [SEC. 5. (b)]
We have been bombing the nation of Iraq for years, without a Declaration of War, and without the specific authorization of Congess, in direct violation of the War Powers Act.
WE are not at war. President Bush is at war.
To: exodus
Congress gave President Bush the authority to take what ever action he saw fit to deal with these terrorist. That is all the Consitutional authority the President requires. You are reduced to playing word games. A state of war can exist, even without the Congress formally declaring it.
# 103 by CIB-173RDABN
The words I am "playing" with are the written words of our Constitution.
Congress declares war, not the President.
The Executive is charged with the enforcement of law. Law to be valid must be based upon the Constitution. Law enforcement not based based upon the Constitution is tryanny.
It's not a game.
I don't generally trust these libertarian characters, but sometimes they just might be right. The case for attacking Iraq has yet to be proven.
The format of the article, writing between the lines of someone else's article and simply assenting to or negating the propositions, isn't one that encourages real thoughtfulness though, especially since some of the points are pretty peripheral to the matter at hand.
As far as I know, the consitution is silent on the wording of a declartation of war. So when congress passed a resolution giving President Bush authority to use military force get the terrorist, you could say congress in fact declared war. And so I will say it, Congress did in fact declare war.
So there...
To: exodus
I gotta take my girls to soccer now and watch them kick a ball around in no particular direction. I'll check back later.
# 72 by Gumption
Have fun, Gumption.
Congress declares war, not the President.
To: exodus
As far as I know, the consitution is silent on the wording of a declartation of war. So when congress passed a resolution giving President Bush authority to use military force get the terrorist, you could say congress in fact declared war. And so I will say it, Congress did in fact declare war.
So there...
# 108 by CIB-173RDABN
I know you've read this before, you stubborn ol' coot. : )
(Congress has the power) To declare War; [Article. I, Section. 8, Clause 11]
Without a pressing emergency, the Executive at war violates the Constitution by usurping Legislative powers.
The un-Constitutional War Powers Act limits the President to 8 months of military action without either a Congressional Declaration of War or a new bill of support from Congress.
President Bush has used up his 8 months of action. He is now operating on illegally usurped power.
That's fine and dandy. But by consent and rule of law, even the population of this republic have agreed, for example, that convicted violent felons forfeit their right to posess firearms....even though they retain their inherent right to self-defense.
Since Saddam has lost a war by might, he signed surrender conditions to prove that he no longer would possess WMM. His loss. The international community consented in 1991 that this particular dictator had forfeited his "right" to possess WMM in his "sovereign" borders.
It's foolish to look at this in such a naive fashion, assuming that the despot in question here respects ideal rights and ideal morals.
What part of "terms of surrender" -- as in, unconditional surrender -- do you not understand?
In the future, please refrain from pinging me with your mindless dreck.
If President Bush was usurping the Legislative powers, the constitution provides several avenues of relief. (1) They can refuse to vote for any funds to our military, thus forcing the President to stop all military activity, or (2) They could impeach the President, or (3) they could declare war on their own (they don't need to wait for the President to ask do they?, or (4) they can vote another resolution authorizing the President to continue doing what he has been doing, or (5) they could stand in the corner out of the way like good little boys and girls hoping that the President makes a mistake so they can then jump on him and blame him for all that goes wrong.
I suspect that Congress will try and do option 5, and President Bush will force them to take option 4.
The truth is, we would not be in this position if we had Statesmen in office instead of politicians.
I would trace the down fall of congress to the 16th amendment and the direct selection of Senators followed closely by the 17th (women's suffrage).
I would really like to see congress declare war, but today we have men (and women) in office who put their own politics ahead of what is good for the country.
President Bush has surprised me in the past, and he may just surprise me again.
Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.
To: exodus
"...by consent and rule of law, even the population of this republic have agreed, for example, that convicted violent felons forfeit their right to posess firearms....even though they retain their inherent right to self-defense..."
# 111 by sam_paine
It was only in 1968 that the "people" decided to EDIT the God-given right of self-defense.
Rights are not for government to grant or modify. Rights are an inherent characteristic of man, and are not to be infringed.
If a man is too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon in public, he should be either imprisoned or killed.
If an prisoner is freed, no man-made law can prevent the acquisition of a weapon.
Self-defense is a right, NOT a privilege of citizenship.
Without a pressing emergency, the Executive at war violates the Constitution by usurping Legislative powers.
To: exodus
If President Bush was usurping the Legislative powers, the constitution provides several avenues of relief. (1) They can refuse to vote for any funds to our military, thus forcing the President to stop all military activity, or (2) They could impeach the President, or (3) they could declare war on their own (they don't need to wait for the President to ask do they?, or (4) they can vote another resolution authorizing the President to continue doing what he has been doing, or (5) they could stand in the corner out of the way like good little boys and girls hoping that the President makes a mistake so they can then jump on him and blame him for all that goes wrong.
I suspect that Congress will try and do option 5, and President Bush will force them to take option 4. The truth is, we would not be in this position if we had Statesmen in office instead of politicians. I would trace the down fall of congress to the 16th amendment and the direct selection of Senators followed closely by the 17th (women's suffrage).
I would really like to see congress declare war, but today we have men (and women) in office who put their own politics ahead of what is good for the country. President Bush has surprised me in the past, and he may just surprise me again.
# 113 by CIB-173RDABN
I agree completely with your analyses, CIB-173RDABN.
Congress WANTS the President to usurp it's war powers. If they didn't, they could easily stop him.
I believe that Congress as a whole doesn't want to declare war for two reasons--
1) so that they can avoid political responsibility while seeming to support the war, and
2) to illegally interfere with the power of the President during wartime.
As long as we fight this war under the authority of the President, Congress has the power to declare his actions corrupt and stop the war. If something goes horribly wrong and we need a "war crimes" scapegoat, they would have a ready-made patsy.
Congress can even "discover" that the President exceeded his powers, and use the un-Constitutional war as a reason for impeachment. That's a heavy stick to hold over any President's head.
None of that excuses President Bush's usurpation of war powers, though.
The whole batch of 'em are corrupt.
Iraq should hide it's weapons.
What part of "terms of surrender" -- as in, unconditional surrender -- do you not understand?
# 112 by M. Thatcher
If our national government decided tomorrow to ban all weapons ownership, millions of private arms would immediately "disappear" from official view.
That is an appropriate response to the tyranny of outlawing a basic right, the right of self-defense.
Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation composed of men has that right.
To: exodus
"...It's foolish to look at this in such a naive fashion, assuming that the despot in question here respects ideal rights and ideal morals."
# 111 by sam_paine
I don't care whether Saddam respects rights and morals.
I want my governmemt to follow the law.
The law IS the Constitution.
Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.
To: exodus
"...Since Saddam has lost a war by might, he signed surrender conditions to prove that he no longer would possess WMM. His loss. The international community consented in 1991 that this particular dictator had forfeited his "right" to possess WMM in his "sovereign" borders..."
# 111 by sam_paine
Terms agreed to at gunpoint are not binding.
The "international community" agreed to leave Saddam in power. Saddam is still the sovereign of his nation, thus he MUST have weapons to fulfil his duty.
Finally, rights cannot be forfeited.
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.