So what happens if congress doesn't want war? Bush will still declare it.
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
No where in there does it say he will go without their concurrence. It says his lawyers have said it is legal for him to do so which it is.. I doubt if he will, at least not before the elections.
The President cannot declare war. Only Congress can.
I still say Saddam needs to go but we must build a coalition.
The President cannot declare war. Only Congress can.
I still say Saddam needs to go but we must build a coalition.
It says he could do it, and implies he doesn't think much of congress. But as you can see, my post says "or so it seems"
And I personally don't see any coalition other than US and UK the way things are going.
Wait wait wait, since when did a declaration of war become indefinite? Am I missing something here? Can we still bomb the hell outta Japan?
I don't get that impression and I've read probaby 8 articles today on this topic. I must have my well balanced spin.
I don't even see the U.K.
Well since Japan was the last country we declared war on (or was it Germany), if it is I guess we can. The point the article is trying to make is that according to White House lawyers we can still act in Iraq because they have not adhered to the UN resolution that Congress cited when it gave it's blessing for the Gulf War. Lawyer mumbo jumbo.
It does say, "Bush has said repeatedly he will consult lawmakers before deciding how to proceed but has pointedly stopped short of saying he will request their approval. "
Seems to me that he really doesn't care what Congress thinks.
I don't recall anyone declaring war on Vietnam, yet some people still persist in calling it one.
I don't have much confidence in this moron who didn't even get the popular vote declaring war from The Best Little Western Whitehouse in Texas, without consulting with ELECTED officials.
So far the arguments have been let's attack Saddam, cus he is in the middle east and must be a terrorist, even though Iraq is one of the most secular countries in that area. We assume he has nuclear weapons, but no proof is presented, and then the administration says that we need to attack Iraq for expelling inspectors while at the same time saying that sending inspectors in would be pointless and not prove that Iraq is disarmed. Meanwhile, we have Saudi Arabia, who have basically paid for this whole terrorism effort through their Wahabbi clerics and schools. Of course we can't rock that boat, cus a lot of Bush buddies would lose lots of money. So we are going to fight a country that is marginally if at all connected to Al Qaeda, which receives only food and medicine from us, while ignoring a country that basically paid and continues to pay for terrorist operations with our own oil money. We are going to end up spending tonnes of money to rebuild Iraq and continuing to give money to Saudis so they can kill us with it. And it will look like we are doing something about terrorism without actually doing anything about it.
So far the arguments have been let's attack Saddam, cus he is in the middle east and must be a terrorist, even though Iraq is one of the most secular countries in that area. We assume he has nuclear weapons, but no proof is presented, and then the administration says that we need to attack Iraq for expelling inspectors while at the same time saying that sending inspectors in would be pointless and not prove that Iraq is disarmed. Meanwhile, we have Saudi Arabia, who have basically paid for this whole terrorism effort through their Wahabbi clerics and schools. Of course we can't rock that boat, cus a lot of Bush buddies would lose lots of money. So we are going to fight a country that is marginally if at all connected to Al Qaeda, which receives only food and medicine from us, while ignoring a country that basically paid and continues to pay for terrorist operations with our own oil money. We are going to end up spending tonnes of money to rebuild Iraq and continuing to give money to Saudis so they can kill us with it. And it will look like we are doing something about terrorism without actually doing anything about it.
Umm, actually, he can declare war for various reasons. One of which is linking the country to previous attacks on the US like in Sept. or Pearl Harbor for that matter.
Another is if we (USA) foresee imminent danger.
Honestly, the best he could hope for right now is a rigidly "cold war".
Besides, read about what his daddy has to say about this whole thing... Sr. doesn't want to be outdone by Jr. hehe
What silly things our LEADERS do... it's almost like we have a "Royal Family"... except they're from Texas.
*edited for tongue
Originally posted by: Kitros
Umm, actually, he can declare war for various reasons. One of which is linking the country to previous attacks on the US like in Sept. or Pearl Harbor for that matter.
Another is if we (USA) foresee imminent danger.
Honestly, the best he could hope for right now is a rigidly "cold war".
Besides, read about what his daddy has to say about this whole thing... Sr. doesn't want to be outdone by Jr. hehe
What silly things our LEADERS do... it's almost like we have a "Royal Family"... except they're from Texas.
*edited for tongue
Umm, actually. he can't declare war. Only Congress can. Don't confuse it with the War Power's Act which says:
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
This is not the same thing as declaring war. Far from it. The legal implications of declaring war are complex and far reaching.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: Kitros
Umm, actually, he can declare war for various reasons. One of which is linking the country to previous attacks on the US like in Sept. or Pearl Harbor for that matter.
Another is if we (USA) foresee imminent danger.
Honestly, the best he could hope for right now is a rigidly "cold war".
Besides, read about what his daddy has to say about this whole thing... Sr. doesn't want to be outdone by Jr. hehe
What silly things our LEADERS do... it's almost like we have a "Royal Family"... except they're from Texas.
*edited for tongue
Umm, actually. he can't declare war. Only Congress can. Don't confuse it with the War Power's Act which says:
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
This is not the same thing as declaring war. Far from it. The legal implications of declaring war are complex and far reaching.
I may be mistaken but if I recall correctly the War Powers Act was passed in 1973 when Nixon was President. Every President from Nixon onward has maintained that it is an unconstitutional restriction on the powers of the Executive Branch but so far I don't believe any of them have tried to test that theory in court.
True. Nixon vetoed the bill and it was passed over his veto. The law has largely been ignored and neither the Legislative nor the Executive have questioned it's legality in court. If the Court ruled one way or the other it would just be one less thing for one of them to squawk about. To me it has always seemed a viable compromise between the Constitution and the powers of the CinC. Of course it's not about right or wrong, it's about power and with GW's passion for restoring the powers of the Executive branch he's as likely as anyone to challenge this law especially if he get's re-elected.
I don't know. Try punching yourself in the face until they appear or until you lose conciousness.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
I think both Congress and the President have little interest in challenging the status quo on the War Powers Act for the reasons you stated above. Congress seems to be content with their role of advise and consent and the Presidents seem content to assert that irregardless of the War Powers Act they can deploy troops as they see fit. To run it up in front of the Supreme Court might produce unexpected results that neither side would be happy with. I still think GWB would be best served by working with congress as much as possible before undertaking any action in Iraq. The administration does seem to realize this as evidenced by the number of spokespersons coming forth to begin laying out the case for action. Meanwhile the President will continue to assert his authority to take independent action and congress will continue to point to the War Powers Act. As far as I see it is all just politics as usual and will probably remain that way until after the November elections.
Ok by your logic we should just wait for him to send his terrorists over and bomb the hell outta something else. What mr Bush is doing is called trying to PREVENT future attacks. We all know how Clinton dealt with Bin Laden.
I agree with the idea of a coalition, at least in theory. Getting a lasting coalition with middle east countries is a joke, at best. Maybe we should just leave all of them alone and let Saddam have his way with them. Then, when they come crying for help, remind them of all the crap we have taken.
Has Saddam ever attacked us? Saudis have hurt us very much indeed. And they continue to brazenly raise money and support wahabbis spreading terrorism all over the world. So shouldn't we deal with those who have hurt us before we deal with those who might, but probably won't. Again, Iraq is not an Islamic republic. It's a secular dictatorship. If anything, we will destablilize that country and make it a fertile ground for terrorists.
Dave -
True. Nixon vetoed the bill and it was passed over his veto. The law has largely been ignored and neither the Legislative nor the Executive have questioned it's legality in court. If the Court ruled one way or the other it would just be one less thing for one of them to squawk about. To me it has always seemed a viable compromise between the Constitution and the powers of the CinC. Of course it's not about right or wrong, it's about power and with GW's passion for restoring the powers of the Executive branch he's as likely as anyone to challenge this law especially if he get's re-elected.
The WPA has only been ignored because there has been no friction between the Executive and the Legislative Barnch yet over this issue in 29 years. You make the WPA sound trivial, and it is not.
As far as the "compromise" aspect of the WPA, where was the compromise? This was passed over the President's veto. Where is the interbranch compromise? There was none. This was a unilateral act by Congress to to expand its power at the expense of the Executive Branch. The Constitution says nothing about the need to consult. Congress may have overstepped its authority in passing the WPA.
The Supreme Court will have jurisdiction to hear this case, but it won't be able to do anything until there is a case in controversy... until somebody sues to have it heard.
You are correct when you say it is about power. However, I don't understand where you are getting Bush's "passion" for restoring the powers of the Executive Branch? What do you base this on? The president has yet to lift his veto pen. Also, he can not "get power" by himself. The president does not have any power that is not reserved to him under the US Constitution or granted to his by the Congress of the United States. Explain to me how he could "restore power" to the Executive Branch.
Historically (pre-FDR) there was almost no executive power...
True. Nixon vetoed the bill and it was passed over his veto. The law has largely been ignored and neither the Legislative nor the Executive have questioned it's legality in court. If the Court ruled one way or the other it would just be one less thing for one of them to squawk about. To me it has always seemed a viable compromise between the Constitution and the powers of the CinC. Of course it's not about right or wrong, it's about power and with GW's passion for restoring the powers of the Executive branch he's as likely as anyone to challenge this law especially if he get's re-elected.
The WPA has only been ignored because there has been no friction between the Executive and the Legislative Barnch yet over this issue in 29 years. You make the WPA sound trivial, and it is not.
As far as the "compromise" aspect of the WPA, where was the compromise? This was passed over the President's veto. Where is the interbranch compromise? There was none. This was a unilateral act by Congress to to expand its power at the expense of the Executive Branch. The Constitution says nothing about the need to consult. Congress may have overstepped its authority in passing the WPA.
The Supreme Court will have jurisdiction to hear this case, but it won't be able to do anything until there is a case in controversy... until somebody sues to have it heard.
You are correct when you say it is about power. However, I don't understand where you are getting Bush's "passion" for restoring the powers of the Executive Branch? What do you base this on? The president has yet to lift his veto pen. Also, he can not "get power" by himself. The president does not have any power that is not reserved to him under the US Constitution or granted to his by the Congress of the United States. Explain to me how he could "restore power" to the Executive Branch.
Historically (pre-FDR) there was almost no executive power...
Sure bush can fight iraq with out approval from congress. Ever heard of the Vietnam war? Because of that war the rules are slightly changed now. Now there are limits on how long he can wage war. He just has to get the war over and done with in 90 or so days. Some of this should have been explained to you in High school....
Why do we need to attack Iraq. We want to prevent him from acquiring unclear weapons which he might use against us? Surely, since he's not saying anything about attacking us, and we are talking very seriously about attacking him, it's us that's the threat and should be attacked. The whole world needs to form a coalition and attack us because we are the threat to pease. We aren't just developing weapons of mass destruction. We have them, nuclear, chemical, and biological. And we've used them, even against our own people. We attqcked Japan with nuclear weapons. No doubt about it. We are the enemy in the world, the one threatening war. We need to be taken out. We need a regiem change, and bad.
Why do we need to attack Iraq? Because they are a mortal threat like Big Dick says. Did you hear the Isreaeli general's comment on that. He said that Iraq isn't even a mortal threat to Israel, that he sellps soundly at night, and that if Iraq really were a threat, they, Israel, could take care of it.
The question is, who is pushing your emotional buttons, who is manipulating your fears and hate? Why are we going to war with Iraq? What is it really about? Why is this administration going to butcher thousands and thousands of Iraqis and maybe hundreds or thousands of American service men? Why? It is completely contrary to American tradition and law to attack somebody just because you claim they were about to attack you. Remember the Domino effect where Viet Nam was going to invade Texas if we didn't stop them. China is a threat. China is a real threat. Why aren't we preparing to attack China. Hey, guess what, the Chinese government kills its own people. OOOOH!
War is a psychosis, a consciousness constrictor. What aren't we supposed to be seeing? From what is our attention being diverted.
Well one thing is for sure. We're in this mess because God is mad at us for selecting the looser of the Presidential race of 2000.
Why do we need to attack Iraq? Because they are a mortal threat like Big Dick says. Did you hear the Isreaeli general's comment on that. He said that Iraq isn't even a mortal threat to Israel, that he sellps soundly at night, and that if Iraq really were a threat, they, Israel, could take care of it.
The question is, who is pushing your emotional buttons, who is manipulating your fears and hate? Why are we going to war with Iraq? What is it really about? Why is this administration going to butcher thousands and thousands of Iraqis and maybe hundreds or thousands of American service men? Why? It is completely contrary to American tradition and law to attack somebody just because you claim they were about to attack you. Remember the Domino effect where Viet Nam was going to invade Texas if we didn't stop them. China is a threat. China is a real threat. Why aren't we preparing to attack China. Hey, guess what, the Chinese government kills its own people. OOOOH!
War is a psychosis, a consciousness constrictor. What aren't we supposed to be seeing? From what is our attention being diverted.
Well one thing is for sure. We're in this mess because God is mad at us for selecting the looser of the Presidential race of 2000.
I in no way meant to trivialize the Act. I think the lack of friction is because one side always wants to reserve the right to say "I told you so."
There, obviously, wasn't any actual compromise. What I said was tht the law appeared to me to be a good compromise between the powers of the CinC and the powers of Congress to declare war. It was striictly my opinion. As far as Congress overstepping it's bounds--maybe. I do think that if this is ever challenged in the Court that one of the things that will need to be done is that "war" will have to defined in a legal sense.
What I was referring to is this administrations references to it's "erosion of power". They have cited the WPA, the congress demanding the minutes from various mtgs, fast track trade agreements, etc. They have said that previous admins have not pushed for these things or let some of these things happen and it has caused this "erosion" and that they were going to "restore" them. As far as the veto goes, I guess you can look at it a couple of different ways. Bush, et al are great at the compromise, Congress is being a rubber stamp or Bush has used his popularity to get what he wants. It's probably a combination of all of them but even Tom Daschle has said that GW is a lot more politically savvy than anyone gives him credit for.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter