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.