Posted on 02/05/2003 2:57:33 PM PST by finnman69
DeFAZIO, PAUL INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL BUSH’S BLANK CHECK FOR WAR
February 05, 2003
Press Release | Contact: Kristie Greco (202) 225-6416
WASHINGTON, DC— Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX) today introduced legislation to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last fall. Following is DeFazio’s statement: “I heard no new evidence today from Secretary Powell’s address to the United Nations, that would convince me that military action in Iraq is necessary to improve security of Americans.
“Americans want the President to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the Administration’s message keeps changing- six months ago, their case hinged on regime change, three months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections, three weeks ago it was possible possession of chemical weapons, today its tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear from day one.
“Our nation’s immediate threat is still Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorist network. We have full knowledge of North Korea’s equally rapidly developing nuclear weapons program under the control of an equally diabolical leader. There’s well-published accounts of several Mid-east governments aiding and funding known terrorists. Of America’s imminent threats, Saddam Hussein is much lower on the list.
“Saddam Hussein is a brutal untrustworthy tyrant, but he is being contained, and we should allow weapons inspectors to continue their work.
“The President seeks war, this is clear. The Constitution grants the Congress sole authority to declare war, and I believe the President should come before Congress to seek that authority. Our resolution allows him that option.”
The legislation introduced todaywould repeal Public Law 107-243. The bill text reads in total:
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Repeal of Public Law 107-243.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed."
The legislation repeals the broad delegation of authority Congress gave to the President in October, to launch military action against Iraq. Under this legally-binding resolution, the President would have to return to Congress to seek authority to launch a preventive attack on Iraq.
I think there is no chance he would be turned down, but
That raises an interesting question-if a Declaration of War failed in Congress, do you all think Bush would still have the power to go to war?
He didn't.
Out of curiosity, where do you think the anthrax came from?
I certainly recognize that Saddam Hussein is a world class bad guy, but he's in a neighborhood that's full of bad guys and which, except for the oil - which they must sell to eat, isn't worth an American sprained ankle. Since there is no Iraqi link to 9/11 this whole exercise seems like a fool's errand to me.
Being in the “neighborhood that’s full of bad guys” is what makes Saddam so dangerous. An AQ on the run is not necessarily the only terrorist organization that has capabilities to deliver WMD. Not to mention the proximity of Saddam in the heart of the world’s oil supply is extremely dangerous, especially if Saddam makes an irrational decision to hold the world hostage by destroying that supply. Who said the criteria was an Iraqi link to 9/11?
Yah, the kind that actually takes republican principles to heart rather than to the bathroom.
He did, they debated it and passed it.
Did you sleep through it?
The Court has ruled that a joint resolution passed by congress authorizing war fills the legal requirement of a declaration of war.
From the Padilla case:
The critics are certainly correct that we must remain eternally vigilant about our civil liberties. But we are in a period of crisis, a crisis legally the equivalent of a declared war. Formal declarations of war are an anachronism--no country has issued a true declaration of war in more than half-a-century, and such instruments were historically necessary only to initiate major acts of international aggression, which is now illegal under the U.N. Charter. But the Supreme Court held as early as 1800, in Bas v. Tingy, that Congress could "authorize war" by joint resolution without framing it as a formal declaration of war. Last Sept. 14, Congress did precisely that by a combined vote of 516-1.
We have been in a declared war for some time.
These guys know that, they want to un-declare war.
Since he was talking to the UN, and how Saddam is defying the UN, it would have been a little off-topic for him to do so.
But, if you don't think Saddam is a potential threat to us, then you were sadly born with no creative abilities.
The Court ruled that the legal requirement for declaration of war has been filled.
From what I read and heard on the news it was from the US.
They quit talking about it tho. I don't remember them ever saying that Iraq did it.
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.