See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 5680
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-5) not displayed.
.
.
.
#6. To: BeAChooser, Diana, SkyDrifter (#1)
can you offer convincing proof that you are not a TREASONOUS QUEER? You sound like some kind of anti-American nut. All REAL AMERICANS learned that the constitution requires a declaration of war while they were in school. Except for TREASONOUS QUEERS. answer me this. when you have a date with Jeff Gannon - are you the boy or are you the girl. and how much do you pay.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Sure. It is in the penumbra. It should be a resolution written in language that is so clear that a 20 minute rant by a Fox News talking head isn't required to tell us the plain meaning expressed in the four corners of the document. Look at the bullshit Fox had to go through to paint 114 as a declaration of war. Hours and hours of spin to convince us that the bill didn't say what it appeared to say and did say what it didn't say. Look how you had to squirm and quote out of context on the other thread to put lipstick on this pig -- it was silly performance and you know it. Now compare 114 to simple and straight forward declarations of war in WWII.
.
No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert aht a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war. An example of a valid declaration comes to us from 11 December 1941: "The War Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same. Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared 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 Government of Germany 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 government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; 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"
BINGO. In your OPINION. Apparently Congress and the Supreme Court don't agree with you.
"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others." That came from wikipedia, is that a satifactory working definition? And here I am stuck trying to figure out how your idiotic spin could possible help your position. There, now I'm unstuck, you're an idiot.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Written by you, perchance? ROTFLOL! Sorry, but I'm still waiting for you folks to point out a definition of the form a Declaration Of War must take that is in the Constitution or some binding US legislation. But you can't do it, can you, Dakmar. What you folks just can't accept is that the Congress spoke and authorized the use of force in Iraq.
No, you paranoid baboon raper.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Did the Supreme Court rule on the legality of the Iraq War?
A declaration of war is a legal matter, obviously beyond your comprehension. You don't even get t-shirt rights this time, fudgeboy.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
No sense of humor, either?
Apparently not. Too bad, a few of my fellow borg found you amusing.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
*************** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected[12], as all such suggestions since World War II have been. The first Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." The Court of Appeals decision goes on to cite Massachusetts v. Laird stating "The court found that other actions by Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war ... provided enough indication of congressional approval" [47]. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties of the United States, along with federal law and the Constitution itself, are the supreme law of the land (U.S. Constitution). The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and is therefore the law of the land in the United States on equal footing with acts of legislation. The Supreme Court stated in Whitney v. Robertson, "By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing . . . with an act of legislation. . . . if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other".[13][14] The authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed in 2003, many years after the UN Charter.[15] **************** Now what's stopping the anti-war movement from going before the Supreme Court to get them to declare the war illegal according to the Constitution? Perhaps what the Constitution does not do? Define the form of a declaration of war?
Which is why Congress passed a law that was signed by the President authorizing the use of force.
since I am a patient man and you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! I will ask you again. In your date with Jeff Gannon, which you admitted to having, did you violate him, or did he violate you? and how much did you pay?
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Did the US declare war on Iraq? Fill me in, I must have missed that. Yet we did invade with the intention of forcing "regime change"? Sounds like a war to me. Good point, a Republican Congress illegally abdicated authority and likely violated the Constitution, I'll make a note of it.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
First you need to tell us the exact form that a Declaration of War must take according to the Constitution and/or US law. Can you do it? No? Then I guess my answer would be YES, Congress declared war on Iraq when it passed a law authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq for a host of WHEREAS reasons.
SO, WE'RE AT WAR WITH IRAQ??? SHIT, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
ss . . ssanibsurdansinuoashin - Geo. W. Bush
So a state of war exists between the US and Iraq? I'll bet the UN will be surprised to learn that.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Transcript CQ Transcriptions I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails. BAC would be feeling pretty stupid right now if he were able to comprehend the error of his ways. Never happen, I'm just saying...
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." -- George W. Bush, June 18, 2002
Interesting. Now did Gonzales state what form a declaration must take and his source for said form? No? By the way, do you know that Gonzales is on the record calling illegal immigrants American CITIZENS? Talk about something affecting treaties and diplomatic relations. ROTFLOL! In case you haven't figured it out, Gonzales is far from qualified for his job.
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS?
Yawn. Everytime someone scores a point you try to change the subject. Get a new tactic.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Sean D. Murphy. "United States Practice in International Law Volume 2, 2002–2004", Cambridge University Press. Now what's stopping the anti-war movement from going before the Supreme Court to get them to declare the war illegal according to the Constitution? Perhaps what the Constitution does not do? Define the form of a declaration of war? a. You've quoted the judgement of a lower court and the opinion of lawyer. The Supreme Court did not state that the Iraq War was legal - as you suggested in your previous posts - if truth be known, the Supreme Court has not considered the legality of the Iraq War. Isn't that correct? b. It costs a lot of money to attempt to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. Anti-war groups are grass roots organizations - they don't have Israel's foreign aid budget, for example, with $ to burn. Besides this is not a case that needs a Supreme Court judgement. This is a matter of Congress needing and wanting to assert its authority in matters of war declaration. Congress should revoke the temporary power it passed to GWB in October 2002 to use force against Iraq and then it should defund the Iraq War. But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority. FYI, here's what Americans want in terms of foreign policy based on the latest latest prestigious poll conducted by Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs. What Americans want is totally opposite to what GWB and Congress are doing. It must please you that the Israel lobby is calling the shots with our elected representatives regarding foreign policy in the ME because your beliefs are the same as AIPAC - by golly - quelle coincidence.
that and begging the question. where in the constitution does it define the form of a declaration of war? well then doesn't the iraqi war declaration say blah blah blah? (with no supporting quote). prove that i said that! why didn't you post the link? are you a communist?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I never suggested any such thing. I said that the Supreme Court hasn't declared it illegal. And they haven't. You folks claim more than half the country is adamantly against the war and you can't come up with a few million $$$ to take a case before the Supremes? Don't insult our intelligence. ROTFLOL! I agree. But they haven't, have they. Hence, you can't say the war is illegal. Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL! Then they should put their money where their mouth is and go to the Supremes.
BAC: Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL! It's what has been concluded by researchers who are far smarter and better qualified in research and scholarship than you or I are. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt from U of Chicago and Harvard studied the influence of the Israel Lobby on US foreign policy and based on their research there would not have been an Iraq War were it not for the considerable influence brought to bear on Congress and the White House to invade Iraq by the Israel Lobby. You might want to read their study, BAC. Then you wouldn't have to look like such an ill-informed cheap shot artist who makes ignorant remarks like "Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL!" Furthermore, BAC, so you don't go around presenting yourself as a red neck bigot ( though my advice is probably too late in that regard), you should not lump together Jews with IsraelFirster lobby groups or with Israelis themselves. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=891198 "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" March 2006
The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress. They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared." It is not a difficult concept once you get the hang of it. For Japan, the precise language was, "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...." For Germany, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the United states, is hereby formally declared...." For Italy, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United States and the Government of Italy which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared...." Below is how the declaration of war against Germany went through each house of congress. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/77-1-148/77-1-148.html [IN THE SENATE] DECLARATION OF STATE OF WAR WITH GERMANY Mr. Connally, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported an original joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same, which was read the first time by its title, and the second time at length, as follows: "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, 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 Government of Germany; 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." I am authorized by the Committee on Foreign Relations to say to the Senate that after consideration of the text of the joint resolution which I have reported and after mature consideration of all aspects of this matter, the membership of the Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approve and agree to the course suggested. One member of the committee was absent, but I have authority to express his views. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the joint resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? Mr. CONNALLY. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. The result was announced yeas 88, nays 0. * * * * * * So the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) was passed. =========================== [IN THE HOUSE] DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 256, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. The Clerk read as follows. "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany 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 Government of Germany; 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." Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. * * * * * * The question was taken; and there were yeas 393, answered "present" 1, not voting 36. So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the resolution was agreed to. ==========================
No. I am STILL not aware of that. LINK please.
BAC said that there was never a declaration of war against Germany. and you've taken the time to prove him wrong. thank-you. BAC is a TREASONOUS QUEER! by his own admission as well I think you should know. a man that is a TREASONOUS QUEER is not someone that can or should be trusted.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
i would trust a treasonous queer before i believed anything fish breath told me. and the whole internet seems to agree.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Yet the succubus claims that's exclusive to 4um'ers.
and the whole internet seems to agree. BAC is both a TREASONOUS QUEER and a FISH BREATH. and the whole internet DOES AGREE. following link proves it beyond any shadow of doubt. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49419&Disp=37#C37
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
would you want to cop to being a failure all across the interet?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
tagline test
Your picture is back.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
i moved it to your folder.
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS? Shalom Fish Breath. What does your response above have to do with the price of tea in China? Why didn't you try to address his point instead of trying to change the subject?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
While that is an interesting dictum, it is not part of the holding which is the only part of a court decision that sets any legal precedent. On the holding, the Court found that no justiciable issue had been presented and affirmed the DISMISSAL of the entire case by the lower court. The Court punted without deciding the issues presented. United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 03-1266 JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JANE DOE I, SUSAN E. SCHUMANN, CHARLES RICHARDSON, NANCY LESSIN, JEFFREY MCKENZIE, JOHN CONYERS, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, JR., SHEILA JACKSON LEE, JIM MCDERMOTT, JOSÉ E. SERRANO, SALLY WRIGHT, DEBORAH REGAL, ALICE COPELAND BROWN, JERRYE BARRE, JAMES STEPHEN CLEGHORN, LAURA JOHNSON MANIS, SHIRLEY H. YOUNG, JULIAN DELGAUDIO, ROSE DELGAUDIO, DANNY K. DAVIS, MAURICE D. HINCHEY, CAROLYN KILPATRICK, PETE STARK, DIANE WATSON, LYNN C. WOOLSEY, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, President, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, * * * LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are active-duty members of the military, parents of military personnel, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. (1) They filed a complaint in district court seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from initiating a war against Iraq. They assert that such an action would violate the Constitution. The district court dismissed the suit, and plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the dismissal. In October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (the "October Resolution"), Pub L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution is constitutionally inadequate to authorize the military offensive that defendants are now planning against Iraq. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 11 (granting Congress the power "[t]o declare war"). They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war. In either case, plaintiffs argue, judicial intervention is necessary to preserve the principle of separation of powers which undergirds our constitutional structure. Only the judiciary, they argue, has the constitutionally assigned role and the institutional competence to police the boundaries of the constitutional mandates given to the other branches: Congress alone has the authority to declare war and the President alone has the authority to make war. The plaintiffs argue that important and increasingly vital interests are served by the requirement that it be Congress which decides whether to declare war. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, they argue that congressional involvement will slow the "dogs of war"; that Congress, the voice of the people, should make this momentous decision, one which will cost lives; and that congressional support is needed to ensure that the country is behind the war, a key element in any victory. They also argue that, absent an attack on this country or our allies, congressional involvement must come prior to war, because once war has started, Congress is in an uncomfortable default position where the use of its appropriations powers to cut short any war is an inadequate remedy. The defendants are equally eloquent about the impropriety of judicial intrusion into the "extraordinarily delicate foreign affairs and military calculus, one that could be fatally upset by judicial interference." Such intervention would be all the worse here, defendants say, because Congress and the President are in accord as to the threat to the nation and the legitimacy of a military response to that threat. The case before us is a somber and weighty one. We have considered these important concerns carefully, and we have concluded that the circumstances call for judicial restraint. The theory of collision between the legislative and executive branches is not suitable for judicial review, because there is not a ripe dispute concerning the President's acts and the requirements of the October Resolution passed by Congress. By contrast, the theory of collusion, by its nature, assumes no conflict between the political branches, but rather a willing abdication of congressional power to an emboldened and enlarged presidency. That theory is not fit for judicial review for a different, but related, reason: Plaintiffs' claim that Congress and the President have transgressed the boundaries of their shared war powers, as demarcated by the Constitution, is presently insufficient to present a justiciable issue. Common to both is our assessment that, before courts adjudicate a case involving the war powers allocated to the two political branches, they must be presented with a case or controversy that clearly raises the specter of undermining the constitutional structure. * * * [Skipping to page 14 of my PDF file, the court's discussion ends with] Nor is there clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to declare war to the President. To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. It has enacted several relevant pieces of legislation expressing support for an aggressive posture toward Iraq, including authorization of the prior war against Iraq and of military assistance for groups that would overthrow Saddam Hussein. It has also accepted continued American participation in military activities in and around Iraq, including flight patrols and missile strikes. Finally, the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an "authorization" of such a war. It is true that "courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits" on constitutional power. Nixon, 506 U.S. at 238. Questions about the structure of congressional power can be justiciable under the proper circumstances. See, e.g., Clinton, 524 U.S. at 428-36; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 941-44. But courts are rightly hesitant to second-guess the form or means by which the coequal political branches choose to exercise their textually committed constitutional powers. See Orlando, 443 F.2d at 1043. As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches. Dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
Comments (46 - 267) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestCan anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
#7. To: BeAChooser (#1)
(Edited)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
#8. To: BeAChooser (#3)
the FORM the declaration must take.
#9. To: leveller, ALL (#8)
No specific form is required.
But any Congressional act which fails to assert aht a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war.
#10. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#11. To: Dakmar, ALL (#10)
"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others."
That came from wikipedia,
#12. To: BeAChooser (#11)
Written by you, perchance? ROTFLOL!
#13. To: BeAChooser (#9)
Apparently Congress and the Supreme Court don't agree with you.
#14. To: BeAChooser (#11)
(Edited)
#15. To: Dakmar, ALL (#12)
No, you paranoid baboon raper.
#16. To: BeAChooser (#15)
#17. To: scrapper2, ALL (#13)
Did the Supreme Court rule on the legality of the Iraq War?
#18. To: Dakmar, ALL (#14)
A declaration of war is a legal matter
#19. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#17)
#20. To: BeAChooser (#18)
#21. To: Dakmar, ALL (#20)
Did the US declare war on Iraq? Fill me in, I must have missed that.
#22. To: BeAChooser (#21)
#23. To: BeAChooser (#21)
(Edited)
#24. To: BeAChooser, Dakmar, randge (#21)
Then I guess my answer would be YES, Congress declared war on Iraq when it passed a law authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq for a host of WHEREAS reasons.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority
Part III of IV
Monday, February 6, 2006; 3:48 PM GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
#25. To: nolu_chan, BeAChooser (#24)
I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
#26. To: robin (#0)
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
#27. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#24)
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
#28. To: Dakmar, ALL (#25)
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails.
#29. To: BeAChooser (#28)
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS?
#30. To: BeAChooser (#17)
first Circuit Court of Appeals
#31. To: Minerva (#29)
(Edited)
Yawn. Everytime someone scores a point you try to change the subject. Get a new tactic.
#32. To: scrapper2, ALL (#30)
The Supreme Court did not state that the Iraq War was legal - as you suggested in your previous posts
b. It costs a lot of money to attempt to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. Anti-war groups are grass roots organizations - they don't have Israel's foreign aid budget, for example, with $ to burn.
This is a matter of Congress needing and wanting to assert its authority in matters of war declaration. Congress should revoke the temporary power it passed to GWB in October 2002 to use force against Iraq and then it should defund the Iraq War.
But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority.
FYI, here's what Americans want in terms of foreign policy based on the latest latest prestigious poll conducted by Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs. What Americans want is totally opposite to what GWB and Congress are doing.
#33. To: BeAChooser, All (#32)
(Edited)
scrapper2: But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority.
#34. To: BeAChooser, robin (#1)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I shall presently ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution just read to the Senate. Before the request is submitted, however, I desire to say that, being advised of the declaration of war upon the United States by the Governments of Germany and Italy, and anticipating a message by the President of the United States in relation thereto, and after a conference with the Secretary of State, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I called a meeting of the committee this morning and submitted to the committee the course I expected to pursue as chairman and the request which I expected to make. "Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution?
#35. To: BeAChooser (#27)
By the way, do you know that Gonzales is on the record calling illegal immigrants American CITIZENS?
#36. To: nolu_chan, BeAChooser (#34)
#37. To: Red Jones (#36)
BAC is a TREASONOUS QUEER! by his own admission as well I think you should know. a man that is a TREASONOUS QUEER is not someone that can or should be trusted.
#38. To: Morgana le Fay (#37)
and the whole internet seems to agree.
#39. To: Morgana le Fay (#37)
i would trust a treasonous queer before i believed anything fish breath told me.
#40. To: Nostalgia (#38)
Yet the succubus claims that's exclusive to 4um'ers.
#41. To: BeAChooser (#32)
#42. To: Morgana le Fay (#41)
#43. To: Minerva (#42)
#44. To: BeAChooser (#28)
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails.
#45. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, ALL (#17)
The first Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."
.
.
.