any takers?

Bush said we were going after terrorists...sadam is a terrorist. that's all there is to it. besides i trust bush more than i trust congress. best laugh i had all day was sheriff moose saying "we don't have time for a congressional inquiry".

I've read your post twice now and I've yet to find anything that resembles a punch line anywhere in the text.

I have 1 question......

What are you up to?

Ron Paul is a great representative. He is one of the few that I would consider honorable.

This is not difficult at all. The Congress can authorize the Commander-in-Chief to do anything that they please. When they do that, he is not only authorized, but it is his duty.

That's what the Constitution requires.

Ron Paul is wrong. But then, he's a libertarian and we should excuse some of his irrationality.

Simple, because Congress is consenting to the transfer of power. It would only be unconstitutional if the President declared war without being given the authority by Congress.

I'll have to send the ball back to you and get you to answer this.

Who is authorized to manage the war effort according to the constitution?

If it's the commander-in-chief (a.k.a President) then it appears this is working as prescribed.

Plus the President can engage the military for up to 60 days (I think) withOUT congressional approval. So if the congress doesn't like it they can always pull the purse strings.

I think you need to make a stronger argument if you're trying to use the constitution as a reason to be against the war effort.

The War Powers Act of 1973

Public Law 93-148

93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542

November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1.: This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a): It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b): Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c): The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.: The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

Sec. 4. (a)

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1): into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2): into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Sec. 4. (b)

The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

Sec. 4. (c)

Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a): Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
SEC. 5. (b): Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
SEC. 5. (c): Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a): Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (b): Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (c): Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC 6. (d): In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a): Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (b): Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (c): Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (d): In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

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.

SEC. 8. (b)

Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

SEC 8. (c)

For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

SEC. 8. (d)

Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1): is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2): shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

CARL ALBERT

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND

President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,

November 7, 1973.

The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:

FRANCIS R. VALEO

Secretary.

This is the law, if Ron Paul doesn't like it, he should attempt to change it or challege it in the courts since I presume he has standing to do so.

What transfer. If Congress authorizes military action, then where is the transfer of the power to declare war?

Under Paul's (St. Augustine"s) view of a "just" war, the first Iraq war was baseless as Iraq didn't invade us or directly threaten us. Further, the wars with Spain, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and all of Reagan's police actions were improper as well. The Afghan war is very questionable as the Taliban did not directly sent the terrorists and they were not Afghan. This is not an unusual arguement and can be heard in the Christian churches (liberal) and college campuses. The Berrigan Brothers, for all their radicalism, were very consistant during the 60's and 70's with just the sort of argument Paul was making.

I don't agree with it but I can understand the scriptural basis. I am afraid that, sinner that I am, I have a far darker view of human nature and survival.

Let me start out by saying I'm not "bullish" on attacking Iraq. "Having said that", there's no transfer of power, the citizens must cough up the $$$ (through their reps in DC).

If the Congress shows up with a bag of $$$ (they have it - I'm sure) at the Pentagon and says "have at it", it's good enough to go to war.

Ron Paul Has Put Me on The Fence

Let's be careful out there.

I share Ron Paul's opposition to the President's plans.

We've known that Saddam has had a well funded biological weapons program for almost twenty years. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the availability of Warsaw Pact scientists and material, it can only have advanced. At some point he'll have nuclear weapons. When he gets them all, he'll need is long range missles to make him as dangerous as North Korea is today.

Bringing the Mid-East to the point where Iraq could be a "51st State" is too ambitious a goal from where I'm sitting and, when that goal fails, we'll need to leave a US military presence in Iraq for the rest of time. My guess is it'll cost us far more than we'll gain and, after a period of costly frustration (at least), merely serve to remind us that the law of unintended consequences is alive and well.

Absent the oil, the entire Mid-East isn't worth an American sprained ankle. Since the Arabs can't eat oil, their only option is to sell the stuff. Which of them we buy it from isn't something we've cared much about to date and I see no reason we should change our attitude.

if anyone can persuade me on consitutional issues it's Ron Paul and the Liberty Committee

The Congress has the power to "declare" war, while the President has the power to wage war as CIC. The Congress uses its budgetary power to check the President to stop him if they believe he is abusing authority. I did not see this segment, but if Paul is saying that the power to declare war and wage war are the same, then his views are based on something other than the Constitution. One only has to look back at the history of the Constitution and the debate over this wording when it was drafted to know that.

This goes back to the balance of power. Defense falls under the Executive Branch of gov't, it is not under Legislature or Judiciary. But the Legislature must give the Executive office the funds, therefore the permission to activate Defense.

I don't understand the problem. According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief and therefore runs the war. Congress declares it. In other words, they tell the President, "OK, go to it!"

As to whether a formal declaration of war is needed, that's up to congress. We have fought quite a few wars over the years without a formal declaration.

There are three federal bodies -- the prez, the congress, and the court. Unless one of them makes a stink about what the other(s) is(are) doing -- nothing is going to stop them.

I'm not saying it is good or bad in a given instance, just that in reality, "Constitutional" interpretations don't mean much if all branches of the government are in agreement with the intepretation de jure.

How I love this place!!!!!

As soon as you posted your question, I wondered what that position was, granting the President X-amount of days to go after another nation AND PRESTO--- there it was!!! ----- The whole War Powers Act, submitted by Freeper 'jwalsh'!!!!!!!

I shouldn't be surprised. If you want to know something -- ask it here!

God bless Free Republic! (and make a donation so as to finish up the Freepathon!)