Does Congress have to declare war on Iraq

[Tmy]

Isnt that the rule. Does Bush have to get an offical declaration of war if this thing drags on long enough?

[Crossbow]

A formal Declaration of War is not really required in order for the US to actively engage its military.

Cases in point: there was never a state of declared war for Korea or Vietnam.

In the case of Iraq, there was a Congress Resolution passed to support Presidential action, including military action, in regards to dealing with Iraq.

[Tmy]

I that that in post 'Nam they came up with the law requiring Congressional approval if a military action surpasses 3 months. Has my semi-public education failed me.

If he wants to declare war, then yah, he must go through Congress. If he just wants to wage war, he can do so whenever he wants.

[aerocontrols]

No Congress does not have to declare war.

He just has to keep reporting to Congress and they must continue extending the amount of time allotted under the War Powers Act.

MattJ

[crackmonkey]

Well, Congress authorized the use of force, right? Isn't that synonymous with declaring war?

[Agammamon]

The power to delpoy the military has been a bone of contention between the executive and legislative branches. Only congress can declare war and the president can utilize troops up to 120 days without congressional approval. But precedent has allowed the CinC effectively unlimited power to wage war, to date Congress has never forced a president to pull troops out, even if they did not authorize them to go in in the first place.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Crossbow
A formal Declaration of War is not really required in order for the US to actively engage its military.

Cases in point: there was never a state of declared war for Korea or Vietnam.

Just because the government has acted unconstitutionally in the past does not excuse them acting unconstitutionally today.

In the case of Iraq, there was a Congress Resolution passed to support Presidential action, including military action, in regards to dealing with Iraq.

And where is this procedure outlined in the Constitution?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Well, Congress authorized the use of force, right? Isn't that synonymous with declaring war?

No. Declaring war is declaring war. As in saying, "We are now at war with _____" (fill in the blank). The Congressional authorization is an end run around the Constitution.

[American]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
He just has to keep reporting to Congress and they must continue extending the amount of time allotted under the War Powers Act.

If I recall, each conflict gets 60 days in a free-for-all shooting war and another 30 days to mop up and come home. The whole time, the prez can give Congress the middle finger if he feels like.

I'm not sure whether that's the exact wording of the law or not.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by shanek


No. Declaring war is declaring war. As in saying, "We are now at war with _____" (fill in the blank). The Congressional authorization is an end run around the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the form of a declaration of war stated. In what way (other than form) is an "authorization to use force" different than a "declaration of war"?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Advocate


Nowhere in the Constitution is the form of a declaration of war stated. In what way (other than form) is an "authorization to use force" different than a "declaration of war"?

Because IT DOESN'T DECLARE A WAR!!! That's what a Declaration of War is!!!

I've asked for this many times and been ignored each time: Can you point me to ONE SINGLE CONGRESSMEN stating that the "authorization to use force" was a Declaration of War?

[Tmy]

What changes if war is offically declared? Pros and Cons? Can you budget in war costs if you are not at war??

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek
I've asked for this many times and been ignored each time: Can you point me to ONE SINGLE CONGRESSMEN stating that the "authorization to use force" was a Declaration of War?

How about Constitutional Law Professor and top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden (http://biden.senate.gov/~biden/press/release/01/10/2001A24C02.html)?

Moderator: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)

Joe Biden: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

Is this what you're looking for?

MattJ

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Is this what you're looking for?

Actually, yes, thanks. But correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't he the one who tried to amend the War Powers Act to restrict what the President could do without congressional authorization?

This is interesting...I wonder how he considers a resolution that does not declare war to be a declaration of war?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
What changes if war is offically declared? Pros and Cons?

The difference is, if Congress declares war then Congress is responsible, and has to have a proper debate before passage. This way, Congress gets the credit if the President is right and none of the blame if the President is wrong.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek


Actually, yes, thanks. But correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't he the one who tried to amend the War Powers Act to restrict what the President could do without congressional authorization?

I don't know. Is he?

MattJ

[Advocate]

What is a war but the use of force of one nation against another? It really sounds to me like you are making an argument based on magic words rather than on the actual content of the bill. The form of a declaration of war is never specified in the Constitution. The authorization of the use of force is such a declaration and was intended as such. The wording is irrelevant because no specific wording is required in the Contitution. The effect of the bill and its intent are to initiate a war between the US and Iraq.

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I don't know. Is he?

I think so; I'll have to look it up. But I still think it's ironic that people here are using the WPA as a justification for the President acting militarily without a Declaration of War when, in fact, that very act was meant to take that power away from the President.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Advocate
What is a war but the use of force of one nation against another? It really sounds to me like you are making an argument based on magic words rather than on the actual content of the bill. The form of a declaration of war is never specified in the Constitution.

Don't you think that it's obvious that if the Constitution says the Congress must declare war, that they actually do have to declare war? Those so-called "magic words" are very important.

I'll ask another question I haven't received an answer for yet: Why, if Congress can pass one resolution after another supporting the President, can't they just declare war directly?

[Tmy]

Congress is full of cowards. To vote for war means actually taking a side. No body wants to be boxed into a decision until a popular outcome is clear. Then it's jump on bandwagon time.

Do we even have a constitution anymore?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by shanek


Don't you think that it's obvious that if the Constitution says the Congress must declare war, that they actually do have to declare war? Those so-called "magic words" are very important.

I'll ask another question I haven't received an answer for yet: Why, if Congress can pass one resolution after another supporting the President, can't they just declare war directly?

And I will answer again that they have done so. A declaration of war does not need to have the words "declare war" in it any more than a tax is not a tax because it goes under another name. If a tax is still a tax even if it doesn't SAY "tax" why is a declaration of war different?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


The difference is, if Congress declares war then Congress is responsible, and has to have a proper debate before passage. This way, Congress gets the credit if the President is right and none of the blame if the President is wrong.

it is also about appearences. if you start declaring war when you are engaged in battles with someone, where does it stop. The US might have found itself in a constant state of war for the last hundred years. by removing the need to make a distinction, the US can smooth over the smaller wars, and refer to them as 'conflicts', or 'actions'. it does not then look like as much of an aggressor on the world stage, (at least in it's own eyes).

One of the complaints of many critics of the US is that the visibility of what it gets up to around the world is concealed from it's own citizens, they do not know what is being done in their name. If the US had to declare war formally when it goes into battle, then it's actions would be much more visible and open to scrutiny.

this was a part of the reason the US lost the vietnam war. it was never policitally palatable to put the country on a war footing. as long as it was pretending to be 'supporting' south vietnam, dissent at home was not as bad.

conscripts could not be kept indefinitely in the army, for example. if war was declared and you were called up, there was no end to how long you could be kept fighting. this would have made the draft even more unpopular.

when the reality of the commitment came home, it didn't really matter by then.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Advocate
And I will answer again that they have done so. A declaration of war does not need to have the words "declare war" in it

But it should at least have the concept that it is a declaration and the description of something resembling a war, shouldn't it?

[crackmonkey]

Resolution seems pretty damned similar to declaration to me... if you authorize military action, aren't you in effect declaring war?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Resolution seems pretty damned similar to declaration to me... if you authorize military action, aren't you in effect declaring war?

it is a matter of appearances, which, as you may have noticed, is very important. to be able to say the US has declared war is a much more powerful statement than to say the US is involved in a peacekeeping action, or liberty action.

There is also the problem of where do you draw the line. At which point is an a military action a war. People might start getting a bit concerned if they find the US is declaring war every couple of years.

[crackmonkey]

So... what's the difference between a military action and a war?