Tell me, why do you think only the UN security council was cited as authorization to give the president the power to prosecute war? It would have been so easy to include the constitutional authority, wouldn't it? Why wasn't it?
Everything Congress does has to be based in constitutional authority because (please read carefully here) the legislative branch was created by the constitution. Do you understand?
1-8-11 authorizes Congress to declare war. A declaration of war has a form. This legislation is not it. I'm so glad you're willing to overlook little nicities like form and citation of constitutional authority. Why, that means we have a living constitution and fully within the power of the branches, authorized by God Himself, to determine what they want it to allow them to do.
That means I won't be burdened with being a responsible American much longer; I can just turn the whole shebang over to the legislative, executive and judicial folks. Hey, why do we need a constitution, anyway? We got the UN, don't we?
Tell me, why do you think only the UN security council was cited as authorization to give the president the power to prosecute war? It would have been so easy to include the constitutional authority, wouldn't it? Why wasn't it? How should I know? Maybe because it's so obvious that it's implied. I thought, and maybe Congress thought, that everyone already knew that Congress had the power to authorize war. Maybe they thought it went without saying. But who knows what goes through the heads of Congressmen? Not me.
Everything Congress does has to be based in constitutional authority because (please read carefully here) the legislative branch was created by the constitution. Do you understand?
Yes. And this war declaration, like all others, was based in constitutional authority. Specifically the part of the Constitution where it says that Congress has the power to declare war. Do you understand?
1-8-11 authorizes Congress to declare war. A declaration of war has a form. This legislation is not it.
Kindly enlighten me: which part of the Constitution specifies that a war declaration has to have a certain specific "form"? Ah, that's your trouble isn't it, O Brave Constitution Defender. You can't actually find a place in the Constitution to support your position, now, can you?
The resolution as written sure looks like a declaration of war to me. Declaration: "the act of declaring : ANNOUNCEMENT". War: "a state of usually open and declared [=announced, see previous definition] armed hostile conflict between states or nations". The resolution effectively announced to the President and to the world our Congress's intent to authorize the President to use military force, i.e. to engage in warfare.
Sorry, but that's a declaration of war, buddy. Ask Saddam in a week or three.
I'm so glad you're willing to overlook little nicities like form
Good. Especially since the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about "form".
and citation of constitutional authority
Again, why do you so desperately need this "citation" of constitutioanl authority? Is there any doubt that Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war? Who doesn't know this? Are you saying that you don't know this, and that you need a reminder?
Why, that means we have a living constitution and fully within the power of the branches, [...bla...]
Hey, you're the one who has squinted your eyes and found that the Constitution requires declarations of war to take a certain specific "form", not me. So apparently you're the one who's made the Constitution "live and breathe". All I've done is point out that the Constitution authorizes Congress to declare wars. Which they did, as is their explicit Constitutional power. I don't even know what you're arguing about, frankly.
Hey, why do we need a constitution, anyway? We got the UN, don't we?
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....
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