The words that give Bush the Authority.

I support his removal, but it is primarily the responsibility of the Citizen's of Iraq.

I did say that if he is a direct threat to the US, then take him out. I have not seen the evidence, and I don't trust the bueracrats "intel".

How have they affected my life, you mean like the federal neonazis I go through at the airport?

Or do you mean the first piece of "Anti-terrorism" legislation used against Dianna Luppi to take her property away (www.markforusrep.com and check out the Dianna Luppi section) you can see the documents with the Antiterrorism legislation used against a US citizen.

Oh lets see what else, if the beurocrats decide any particular group I decide to affiliate or support is a terrorist organization, then I can be stripped of my Citizenship, arrested without access to a lawyer, held as and enemy combatant, and put to death. Of course, no they would never do that.

Well then, what the heck, they can just pass legislation to pass off all of their duties to the President, they must not be limited to the confines of the Constitution.

Sigh. You too? Is everyone being intentionally obtuse here?

Shall I use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS CONGRESS DECLARES WAR

CONGRESS DECLARED WAR, AS THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO

WHAT IS THE FREAKING PROBLEM?

As far as fiat, it means both a command and an illigitment [sic] command).

P.S. I doubt it means that since there is no word "illigitment" in the English language. Anyway, my comment was directed at the poster who invented the phrase "legislative fiat" because that would make what Congress did sound more sinister (since we all know that "judicial fiat" is sinister, apparently he thought this extended to all other phrases involving the word "fiat"). His problem, and yours, is that Congress didn't do something "illegitimate". It declared war. Which the Constitution expressly states it has the authority to do. In other words they passed one of those "law" things, which is their job, you know. Where's the "illegitimate" part?

Which is why I'm still perplexed as heck trying to figure out what you two are whining about.

P.P.S. I just realized that you (and not Terrell) were indeed the original "legislative fiat" poster I responded to. So, my comments are indeed directed at you, I guess. Sorry for any confusion ;-)

Diane Luppi was charged and convicted under Bill Clinton's watch. Her charges were based on was the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, not the recent laws put in place after 9/11. Seems to me your complaint is with Clinton since he signed the AEDPA into law in 1996 following the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building and the World Trade Center in New York City.

If you don't like being searched, don't fly. Since I work in law enforcement and have to deal with contraband on a daily basis, you'll not get any sympathy from me in regards to compromising security. If I had my way, the searches would be even more intrusive.

If you're a libertarian, you'll never be happy with any laws on the books or anything the government does for that matter. Just don't spend your life worrying about things that the government more than likely will never do to you. Life will pass you by before you know it.

I have not seen the evidence, and I don't trust the bueracrats "intel".

I guess that means you're gonna hafta go do some sleuthin' and spyin' yourself, 007. I mean, if you are never going to be willing to trust the "bueracrats [sic]" intel, then whatever evidence they show you, you will dismiss.

In other words you'll only believe evidence you collect and gather yourself. Well, go to it.

Of course, some thing to consider (which you probably won't do ..) is that the Congressional Resolution that was passed that enabled the President to take action does the following things:

1. It grants the President the authority to act, with the approval of the Congress.

2. It lets the tyrant Saddam know that Congress approves, and the President may act without going back to Congress. This means that the President doesn't need to give Saddam advanced warning of his intentions to use force. (AND THIS ... my friends ... is IMPORTANT. The full force and might of the U.S. military can be used effectively and collateral damage can be minimized. BUT the insistant whining that the U.N. allow more inspections, and the President go back and ask Congress to clarify ("Did you really mean what you said ... would you pass another resolution to show the world you really meant what you said the first time....") ... that takes away any tactical advantage, and will eliminate any surprises ... and can cause higher casualties - on both sides.

These whiners about another resolution are willing to sacrifice lives of soldiers and sailors needlessly. It disgusts me. Congress also passed a resolution in 1998 authorizing the President to unilaterally seek a regime change in Iraq. Remember that little number. (The fact that Democrats who voted for it felt (correctly) that Clinton would do NOTHING (they were right) probably felt it gave them cover - they could look strong while actually being gutless wonders.

Of course, in December, it looked like Saddam was considering fleeing Iraq when it appeared that the world would unite behind military action. But the Axis of Weasel, and all the peaceniks world wide have emboldened Saddam with chants of "Give the Madman another Chance"... or "He has only killed 1 million Muslims; He hasn't hurt any Americans" ... etc. etc. etc. These weasels and cowards have actually increased the need to take action - now or in the future. Like the "peace in our time" (Peace at Any Price") crowd of 1938 (Chamberlin - Munich) - the peace crowd allowed a madman to stay in power, and major death and destruction followed. At least if war had started earlier, there would be fewer lives lost overall.

But Congress has acted SEVERAL TIMES - so the President has the authorization he needs. He should use it whenever he feels that the tactical element of surprise would benefit .... and the liberation of Iraq should proceed.

Mike

This is not a declaration of war. Go take a look at other declarations of war. This is Congress authorizing the executive to use force to enforce a UN mandate. The only authority I see mentioned in this legislation is the UN.

Maybe I'm old, but I was taught this in school. Where did you go to school?

Actually, that does seem to be what you think, since you've already stated that you believe if the UN votes down a second resolution then our Congress suddenly magically loses its authority to declare wars for some reason. I'm still scratching my head over that one....

Let me make it clear. If the Congress is relying on UN authority in making this legislation, then it must likewise submit to the same authority if the UN say no, otherwise all this is arbitrary and begs the question, why do we even need laws.

The burden of proof is on you. There is no indication anywhere in thelegislation that 1-8-11 was the authority behind it, and that it was enacted using 1-8-11 as constitutional authority.

Congress has a history, a great one in recent history, for passing unconstitutional laws. In light of that history, the presumption is this is not based on the federal constitution.

Show me where it was, and how it was. You can't because it wasn't, neither by its form or its content. Any authority for Congress to do such a thing would come from a treaty or agreement with the UN. And I don't want the UN running our lives, especially sending our people to war.

If Congress wants to defend the country from a threat, let them do it by the book.

Again, what's your educational background and when?

I we don't do things by the book, we may find we no longer have a book. Precedent is everything in any area related to law. And it's a fact that bad precedent is always established in a state of emotion.

It's so obviously authorizes an attack it's embarassing that we are still dicking around with the UN.

This is not a declaration of war. Go take a look at other declarations of war.

It may not have the same form as pre-1942 declarations of war, but that doesn't mean it's not one. I can only refer you to my previous post to you. "Declaration" and "war" are standard English words with things called "definitions", and you put them together, and that's what we've got right now.

This is Congress authorizing the executive to use force to enforce a UN mandate.

And that "force" will result in this "war" thing we're talking about. I'm with you.

The only authority I see mentioned in this legislation is the UN.

That's too bad. So you really did forget that Congress has Constitutional authority to make declarations of war, then.

Maybe I'm old, but I was taught this in school.

Taught what in school? The stuff about how the Constitution (in some secret passage you haven't pointed out to me) requires declarations of war to take a certain "form"?

Where did you go to school?

Wow you're really stretching, aren't you? Changing the subject with an attempt at some kind of ad hominem, and all...

Let me make it clear. If the Congress is relying on UN authority in making this legislation, then it must likewise submit to the same authority if the UN say no, [...]

Well golly, then I'm glad to clear it up. They're not relying on "UN authority" in making legislation. (The US Congress doesn't have "UN authority" to make legislation in the first place.) They're relying on Constitutional authority, specifically their authority to make declarations of war. Hope that clears things up.

The burden of proof is on you.

Why's that? You're the one claiming Congress did something unconstitutional by not giving their declaration of war a certain "form", and yet you refuse to show me which part of the Constitution requires this, time and time again. Why's the burden of proof on me? Because you want it to be?

There is no indication anywhere in thelegislation that 1-8-11 was the authority behind it, and that it was enacted using 1-8-11 as constitutional authority.

So which constitutional authority do you assert they were using?

Show me where it was, and how it was.

Actually, you've shown me. "1-8-11". Congress has the power to declare wars, and they did so. As I've said.

You can't because it wasn't, neither by its form or its content.

Again with this "form" stuff. Seriously, aren't you embarrassed to keep saying this when you know as well as I do that you can't point to any kind of "required form of a war declaration" section of the constitution? And as for "content", the content of that resolution is equivalent to a declaration (announcement) of war (armed hostile conflict).

Again, what's your educational background and when?

Again, you must be very desperate to fish for such information.

What book covers every precedent! A retalitory nuclear-strike isn't covered by the Constitution . . . and extremists would require the President to convene a joint session of Congress (like FDR - Dec. 08, 1941) - and ask for a declaration of war BEFORE releasing the U.S. nuclear weapons in retaliation.

Don't be so tied up that you miss the forest for the trees.

Congress PASSED two resolutions ... and the first in 1998 authorized the President to procede - even unilaterally - with a regime change in Iraq. The second resolution was more emphatic about taking all necessary action against terrorists and states that support terrorism - after the 9-11 attacks.

The "letter" of the process might not have been followed - by strict constructionist ... but the intent has been more than satisfied. Further requirements benefit the enemy!! (but most of the "peace-niks" would rather Saddam be helped than worry about success in the war on terrorism - and would rather have Saddam stay in power killing hundreds of thousands while whining that U.S. action might kill hundreds OR thousands.)

Mike

It may not have the same form as pre-1942 declarations of war, but that doesn't mean it's not one. I can only refer you to my previous post to you. "Declaration" and "war" are standard English words with things called "definitions", and you put them together, and that's what we've got right now.

H.J. Res. 114 is what this is. I can't find it. But it sounds like a resolution. A declaration of wars is not a house joint resolution. A declaration of war has an enacting clause.

Wow you're really stretching, aren't you? Changing the subject with an attempt at some kind of ad hominem, and all...

I just want to know where you were educated, and when; the public OR the colleges don't teach this stuff nowadays. You don't seem to know how this country and its laws are supposed to work.

Well golly, then I'm glad to clear it up. They're not relying on "UN authority" in making legislation. (The US Congress doesn't have "UN authority" to make legislation in the first place.) They're relying on Constitutional authority, specifically their authority to make declarations of war. Hope that clears things up.

Show me the full text of the legisalstion with the enacting clause.


Enacting clause.
  
   A clause at the beginning of a statute which states the
  authority by which it is made.  That part of a statute which
  declares its enactment and serves to identify it as an act of
  legislation proceeding from the proper legislative authority. 
  Various formulas are used for this clause, such as "Be it enacted
  by the people of the state of Illinois represented in general
  assembly," "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
  Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
  assembled," "The general assembly do enact," etc.  See also
  Enabling clause;  Preamble.

Why's that? You're the one claiming Congress did something unconstitutional by not giving their declaration of war a certain "form", and yet you refuse to show me which part of the Constitution requires this, time and time again. Why's the burden of proof on me? Because you want it to be?

The burden of proof is on you to show that Congress used 1-8-11 to enact this legislation. There is no indication that that constitutional power was used. There is no enacting clause. It's a joint resolution. There is no note of authority beyond UN security council resolution. You say Congress used their constitutional power to pass it. Ok, show me. The prima facie evidence in its wording says not.

So which constitutional authority do you assert they were using?

I see no constitutional authority. Perhaps a treaty or the agreement that made the US a member of the UN.

What book covers every precedent!

The United States Constitution. If it ain't spelled out specifically, or implied by clear and unambiguous inference, the covered branch of national government has no authority to touch it, unless it's covered by "the commerce clause" apparently (that was sarcasm).

. . .and extremists would require the President to convene a joint session of Congress (like FDR - Dec. 08, 1941) - and ask for a declaration of war BEFORE releasing the U.S. nuclear weapons in retaliation.

Such an extreme event would authorize, by its nature and immediacy, the executive to move instantly to retaliation and move the country into an emergency condition. Nothing even remotely like that has happened. There is plenty of time for the Congress to dot the i's and cross the t's.

Congress PASSED two resolutions

"Resolutions" don't get it. Congress cannot by resolution or any other tactic transfer their authority under 1-8-11 to the executive branch. Congress is composed of cowards fearing only for their political careers.

If we allow a precedent of extraconstitutional activity by the branches that were created by the constituion because it might benefit the enemy, we have taken a long step toward the enemies' goals.

A declaration of war has an enacting clause.

Not this one, evidently. (I'm taking your word for it....)

I just want to know where you were educated, and when

I know you do. It's pathetic.

You don't seem to know how this country and its laws are supposed to work.

Well, one of us is arguing that our Congress loses its right to authorize war if the UN votes it down. And it ain't me. So there's that. I agree that I was never taught about the secret "Valid Form Of War Declaration" section of the Constitution. You've got me beat on that point.

Show me the full text of the legisalstion with the enacting clause.

Look it up yourself, why don't you.

The burden of proof is on you to show that Congress used 1-8-11 to enact this legislation

1-8-11 gives power to Congress to declare war, and that's what this legislation did. Therefore they did indeed use their power granted in 1-8-11 to enact this legislation.

They may not have said this in an enacting clause preamble, but that's not my problem. I'm just saying they had the authority to do what they did. (Which they did.) You're the one saying they didn't have the authority to do what they did. (Which is crap.) Seems to me the burden's on you.

I see no constitutional authority.

That's weird, you've pointed it out to me many times.

The constitutional authority is located in 1-8-11, as you've said. Go look at it.

All legislaton has an enacting clause if it is constitutionaly based. Don't take my word for it. Here's what Black's has to say about it.


Enacting clause.
  
   A clause at the beginning of a statute which states the
  authority by which it is made.  That part of a statute which
  declares its enactment and serves to identify it as an act of
  legislation proceeding from the proper legislative authority. 
  Various formulas are used for this clause, such as "Be it enacted
  by the people of the state of Illinois represented in general
  assembly," "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
  Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
  assembled," "The general assembly do enact," etc.  See also
  Enabling clause;  Preamble.

Why is it pathetic that I want to know where and when you were educated? If it was relatively recently and/or in the public schools, you may be missing some important material about the way our government is supposed to work.

Well, one of us is arguing that our Congress loses its right to authorize war if the UN votes it down. And it ain't me. So there's that. I agree that I was never taught about the secret "Valid Form Of War Declaration" section of the Constitution. You've got me beat on that point.

Well, no. Congress doesn't lose it's constitutional power to declare war on whomever. However, if Congress uses UN authorization, from whatever agreement with the UN America has made to be a member, to authorize the executive to prosecute war, and the UN votes the move to war down, to be consistant with law, Congress must withdraw the resolution and authorization to the executive. Nothing stops them from constitutionally declaring war, which they have not done.

Look it up yourself, why don't you

I did. Thomas Register says the text of the legislation has not been transmitted yet.

Yes, yes. Just because the Congress makes a joint resolution to let the executive loose, it does not mean they did it using constitutional power. They could use the power a treaty gives to them, for instance, and which I'm sure they used in this case. But treaties are equal to, and not greater than, common legislation, both of which are subordinate to the constitution.

If the resolution has a enacting clause, as noted above, then that ties it back to the constitution. I would be more than happy to see Congress constitutionally declare war on Iraq. I see no evidence they have.

If you were taught even basic government/civics in school, you would see it too.

All legislaton has an enacting clause if it is constitutionaly based. Don't take my word for it. Here's what Black's has to say about it.


Enacting clause.
  
   A clause at the beginning of a statute which states the
  authority by which it is made.  That part of a statute which
  declares its enactment and serves to identify it as an act of
  legislation proceeding from the proper legislative authority. 
  Various formulas are used for this clause, such as "Be it enacted
  by the people of the state of Illinois represented in general
  assembly," "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
  Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
  assembled," "The general assembly do enact," etc.  See also
  Enabling clause;  Preamble.

Why is it pathetic that I want to know where and when you were educated? If it was relatively recently and/or in the public schools, you may be missing some important material about the way our government is supposed to work.

Well, one of us is arguing that our Congress loses its right to authorize war if the UN votes it down. And it ain't me. So there's that. I agree that I was never taught about the secret "Valid Form Of War Declaration" section of the Constitution. You've got me beat on that point.

Well, no. Congress doesn't lose it's constitutional power to declare war on whomever. However, if Congress uses UN authorization, from whatever agreement with the UN America has made to be a member, to authorize the executive to prosecute war, and the UN votes the move to war down, to be consistant with law, Congress must withdraw the resolution and authorization to the executive. Nothing stops them from constitutionally declaring war, which they have not done.

Look it up yourself, why don't you

I did. Thomas Register says the text of the legislation has not been transmitted yet.

Yes, yes. Just because the Congress makes a joint resolution to let the executive loose, it does not mean they did it using constitutional power. They could use the power a treaty gives to them, for instance, and which I'm sure they used in this case. But treaties are equal to, and not greater than, common legislation, both of which are subordinate to the constitution.

If the resolution has a enacting clause, as noted above, then that ties it back to the constitution. I would be more than happy to see Congress constitutionally declare war on Iraq. I see no evidence they have.

If you were taught even basic government/civics in school, you would see it too.

All legislaton has an enacting clause if it is constitutionaly based.

Not this one, apparently (I'm taking your word for it). Anyway, we may have mixed signals here. Are you trying to claim that the resolution was unconstitutional, or just not explicitly based on 1-8-11 in its enacting clause? Probably, the latter is correct (I'm still taking your word for it). I'm not sure I actually care, either, but you're free to complain about it I suppose...knock yourself out till you're blue in the face about putting 1-8-11 in an enacting clause, if that makes you happy.

Why is it pathetic that I want to know where and when you were educated?

Because you're changing the subject in a desperate attempt to fish for biographical info. It's pathetic that your argument has sunk to that point. That's all I meant.

However, if Congress uses UN authorization, from whatever agreement with the UN America has made to be a member, to authorize the executive to prosecute war,

Meaningless. Congress doesn't need "UN authorization" to declare a war, since the Constitution already authorizes them to do this, anytime and however they damn well want to. So should the Congress declare war following such a (meaningless) "UN authorization" for them to do so, that wouldn't mean they "used UN authorization" to declare war. It is not "the UN" which allocates the power to the Congress to declare war in the first place, it is the Constitution. The Constitution already gives Congress all the power it could ever ask for to declare any damn war it wants to.

to be consistant with law, Congress must withdraw the resolution and authorization to the executive

Now you've contradicted yourself. Earlier you pretended to agree with me that "Congress doesn't lose it's constitutional power to declare war". But now you're saying that, under such-and-such circumstance, if a foreign body called the "UN" does such-and-such, Congress "must" withdraw their authorization for military force.

They "must"?

So do they have war powers or don't they? Obviously, the effect of what you are saying is that the United Nations retains ultimate war powers authority over the United States. That is effectively your position. And, I disagree.

I would be more than happy to see Congress constitutionally declare war on Iraq.

But they did. They declared war, and Declaring War is a perfectly Constitutional thing for Congress to do. Therefore they have constitutionally (not unconstitutionally) declared war on Iraq. I don't even think it's possible for Congress to "unconstitutionally declare war".

It is, in particular, nonsense to claim that a declaration of war by Congress is unconstitutional because of some treaty. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution. And the Constitution lets Congress declare war. Period.

This article may help.

This article may help.

You're right, it helped immensely. (It was good for a chuckle.)

FYI, here's a link to the text of the resolution in question (Public Law 107-243). I hope you'll note the clause in which the War Powers Resolution from 1973 is mentioned and its requirements are stated as being fulfilled (I think it's section 3-c). And presumably you'll recall that the War Powers Resolution was based on the authority granted Congress by Article 1, Section 8.

Similarly, I see no corresponding clause in which Congress claims to have passed Public Law 107-243 by the authority vested in the US Congress by the UN.

So originally, "all you saw was UN crap", but now that I've passed along the actal text to you, you can see how you erred. If you want.