Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,382
- 1,830
RetiredGySgt wrote:
The Congress has not declared this war, as written into the Constitution of the United States.
DECLARATION OF WAR
From Indago's Link said:There are several problems with this. For starters, it makes a mockery of the constitution. It's legitimate to draw a line beneath which the president can commit troops on his own authority, but there's little question that we've gone well over that line repeatedly in the past decade and a half. By anybody's definition, Gulf I was a war, Kosovo was a war, Afghanistan was a war, and Gulf II was a war. None of them required either secrecy or an instant response that couldn't wait on Congress. In other words, if a declaration of war wasn't required for these conflicts, then Congress's constitutional authority is meaningless. That clause of the constitution might as well not exist.
Second, it gives the president a blank check. Once troops are in the field, no Congress can afford to withhold its support. The reality is that if presidents are allowed to commit large numbers of troops on their own authority, there are essentially no limits to what they can do.
Third, and worst, it allows Congress to evade its own responsibility for war. Did John Edwards really vote for war? Or did he merely vote to authorize coercive inspections? Would he still have voted for the war on March 20 based on what he knew then? Or would the lack of WMD and failed diplomacy have changed his mind?
This is what I've been saying. I think this makes a damn good amount of sense.
From the War Powers Resolution of 1973:
REPORTING
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
he refuses to report that to congress. "No timetables". I believe that ALONE disobeys this resolution, and breaches the Iraq Authorization.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
This would fall under the last category, where Congress is requesting a timetable, and the president is REFUSING to give one.
Also, benchmarks for success have been requested, and been denied by Bush. He is clearly violating this Resolution right here.
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation[(COLOR="red"]once again[/COLOR)], but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
(further along in the wording) ...
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
I'm seeing the president as CLEARLY violating terms of this War Powers Resolution. That automatically unbinds the Iraq authorization, and makes this continued occupation ILLEGAL.
Here's the link to the WPR of 1973:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml