Appeals Court Revives Members' Suit to Stop War

Roll Call Magazine ^ | 10 March 2003 | Damon Chappie, Roll Call Staff

[Poohbah]

hchutch, you are correct.

Jefferson conducted the Barbary Pirate wars without the magical words "declaration of war" ever getting used. The choice of words is at the discretion of Congress.

[over3Owithabrain]

Bush - crap or get off the pot!!! Every day you stall gives the lefties and Saddam a day to plan our destruction. Put your damn card on the table and stop the madness!

[Cacophonous]

The oath of the Presidency calls for him to protect and defend the Constitution; the Constitution is the law of the land, not the President, not Congress, not SCOTUS. Therefore, if the President wishes to go to war, he has to get Congress to declare.

[jwalsh07]

Yup, quite clear. I guess the appeals court in Boston is reading challenged.

[jwalsh07]

Therefore, if the President wishes to go to war, he has to get Congress to declare.

COngress has already done so but those among us with a bent toward cognitive dissonance insist that sooner or later they will knock down the concrete wall with their bony heads.

Bam, bam, bam.......

[kristinn]

You are correct. The circuit court judge ruled that Congress had sent conflicting messages in their votes about the conflict. If Congress had voted consistently, the plaintiffs would have had a better case.

[Poohbah]

I'm sorry. The implication of this view is that the President can go to war whenever he pleases, and with whomever he chooses, much as a dictator can.

The implication of the above sentence is that you really have a hard time reading. Congress is in the driver's seat. If 51 Senators and 218 Representatives agree that Bush isn't acting in the interests of the US, they can withdraw that authorization in about five minutes.

Beyond any lawyerly parsing, that was clearly and undeniably NOT the intent of the Founding Fathers.

The only lawyerly parsing I see here is your own.

[Cacophonous]

How about Ron Paul's proposa: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

The difference here is that it does not cite the UN as authority, which is certainly un-Constitional.

A more wordy version from the War to End All Wars:

Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved ... That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

And Japan in WWII:Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

We won those wars. Didn't win in Korea and Vietnam, 'cause we had no formal dedication of American resources and resolve.

I've enjoyed it folks: gotta get to work. I'm blowing all y'all off, just getting busy,

[Abogado]

Even if the Appeals court hears this issue and rules adverse to our nation's interests - it will be too late as this is an issue the Supreme Court would likely hear. No doubt the Justice Department would request a stay of any adverse decision from the Appellate Court. By the time it works its way through the Court of Appeals, and then is set to be heard by the Supreme Court, the issue will be mute - Baghdad will be glowing...

[Cacophonous]

Thank you.

[hchutch]

But the Constitution is SILENT as to the precise LANGUAGE to be used. Madison, Jefferson, and others were ALIVE and SERVING in Congress when a resolution similar to the one passed after 9/11 was passed.

Look at how they SPELLED OUT the oath of office for the President had to take. It was pretty much set in stone. No comparable details were spelled out in terms of the language that was to be used in declaring war.

[kristinn]

You're welcome.

[An.American.Expatriate]

I asked for a reference to where it states that congress MUST use the magic phrase. You reply with examples of a few declarations. You stated that, failing the magic words, the delcaration was illegal. Please cite. Otherwise please desist in making unpleasant sounds.

[ZULU]

When the judiciary intrudes upon the responsibilites of the executive, it can and should, and has, been ignored. In the COnstitution, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislative branches of government are equal and the judiciary is not superior to the other branches.

Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling, and I am sure there are other precedents. Impeachment, as so recently demonstrated, is a practiccally impossible exercize, given the radical dynamics between right and left in this country.

[mhking]

And the Constitution be damned, eh?

Not at all. We are not talking about a "declared" war situation. Not only that, the Congress has given the President the authority to deal with Iraq two-fold; the original Gulf War authorization from January 1991, along with the War on Terror authorization of September 2001.

In any event, the Constitutional questions have been satisfied. This is nothing more than political machinations. If Al Gore (shudder) were sitting in the Oval Office and contemplating an attack on Saddam, we wouldn't even be having this conversation; the GOP understands the necessity of dealing with this meglomaniac. They woulnd't use the courts to try to hamstring the Commander-In-Chief, politics notwithstanding.

[hchutch]

Three-fold - there was that resolution last year.

Congress has given the go-ahead for the war to start on the President's timetable.

It's pretty clear.

[Jim Noble]

>>Last year, they ceded that power to the President<<

Can Congress cede to the President the power to make laws?

[Jim Noble]

>>What exactly is a formal declaration of war in your opinion?<<

My opinion is that a Declaration of War is an act of the People of the United States, acting through their representatives in Congress assembled.

Such a Declaration should be unambiguous, and should commit the necessary resources to victory.

I am a complete and wholehearted supporter of the President and his actions in the war on terrorism. But I share the well-expressed concerns of others that the Joint Resolution of last Fall allows Congressthings to turn their backs on both Bush (not so important)and our soldiers when the going gets tough.

This is exactly what happened in Vietnam when the "Tonkin Gulf Resolution" failed to bear the weight that was placed on it.

We the People do support our President and our armed forces, we do support making war on the Government of Iraq in order to destroy it and cause it to be replaced by another, better government.

The appropriate vehicle for us to give voice to our support is not demonstrations at NASCAR events or forums like this one-it is for us to act through our representatives and to declare war.

[kcordell]

Can Congress cede to the President the power to make laws?

Yes, the President was given the power of "Executive Order". Congress has the power to repeal those orders though they rarely do.

[ModelBreaker]

Agreed. In addition to the constitutional issue, the practical implications of this are enormous. That this court is willing to consider the issue at all is ominous. If they intended to rule for the administration, they would not have expedited review.

Folks, we are looking at three guys who are about to turn the world over to the Islamists. That's whats at stake. It will take a month to sort this out, if they issue the injunction.

Anyone who thinks a declaration of war in the present political situation will come quickly is dreaming. The RATS know that delay in commencing the war may bring down the Bush presidency. They will insist on a 'debate.' The debate will drone on and on. Few democrats will put their nation's interest above regaining power. Meanwhile, our troops are twiddling their thumbs and the air that is leaking from our political will, will become a torrent.

If the injunction is issued, its 50/50 we withdraw from the middle east with our tail between our legs. We will be revealed as the paper tiger the left wants our nation to be. Rich and ripe for picking.

Think about it. If we cannot remove Hussein after commiting 250,000 troops and a huge amount of political capital, our time as a country that can defend itself is over. For its evil, Islam is a resurgent culture. They actually believe that Islam is worth killing for and dying for. All we can do is argue and debate.

Our dithering over dubious constitutional claims is more evidence that our culture is decadent and self-obsessed. The forest here is survival of the West against an onslaught by barbarians. Either we see the forest, or our children can look forward to the 'constitutional' legacy of terrorism, Islam and the end of the West.