Paul & DeFazio introduce bill to force Declaration of War

[shanek]

Well, at least there's a couple Congressmen who actually care about their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) have introduced a bill which would rescind Congress' unconstitutional resolution authorizing the President to use military action without Congress declaring a war.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200302%5 CNAT20030206a.html
"If you believe the United States should have a war, then be willing to vote for war," DeFazio said. "The president should be willing to come to Congress and make a case for war because that is indeed what this is about.""Presidents, in a republic, aren't supposed to make that decision," [Paul] said. "The people are supposed to make that decision through the vote of their members of Congress, and therefore, I believe this should be rescinded - the president should not have the power to declare war."

And this quote makes a good point:

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030206/frontpage/22806.shtml
"Americans want the president to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the administration's message keeps changing," DeFazio said. "Six months ago, the case hinged on regime change; three months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections; three weeks ago it was possible possession of chemical weapons; today it's tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear from Day One."

[Wolverine]

Abide by the Constitution?

What a novel idea!

Go Ron.

Wish he were my rep... and dangit I'm barely a stone's throw from the 14th District. :(

[Wolverine]

Hmm.

Seemed like a stellar idea several minutes ago... but after further review... how would this address the complexity of leading a coalition of military forces into action?

I'm scratching my head wondering if this is a genuine desire to adhere to strict constructionism or instead an attempt to make an ill-timed political statement.

*shrug*

:confused:

[Jon_in_london]

these guys are antisemetic

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13898

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Seemed like a stellar idea several minutes ago... but after further review... how would this address the complexity of leading a coalition of military forces into action?

Why would it have to? The Constitution merely says that Congress must declare war before American troops can be used in battle (unless they're responding to a direct attack). They just want Congress and the President to follow the Constitution.

Jon: I'm assuming that's sarcasm?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shanek

Jon: I'm assuming that's sarcasm?

Assumption correct :D (see JKs thread)

[Tmy]

What Bush needs to do is to have war declared specifically on Al Queda. None of this vague "war on terror" bullshiznit. Theres alos a "war on drugs" but we dont toss drug dealers into military prisons.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
What Bush needs to do is to have war declared specifically on Al Queda. None of this vague "war on terror" bullshiznit.

While I agree in principle, how can you effectively declare war against a ragtag collection of extremists, who live and work in various countries, including the US? War is traditionally declared against countries, with clearly defined governments and borders. Al Qaeda isn't set up like that.

The thing is, this whole "war on *" is just politispeak. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism...it's a way for the politicians to have an excuse to take away our rights and grab more power while giving the illusion that they're actually doing something to help us.

[Tmy]

But AlQudea is who we're after right? Some people take "war on terror" to mean we're out to stop all terrorism, not just the terrorism targeted at the US. If thats true we wouldl be sending troops into countries all over the world. Terrorism is not the sole property of the Mid east.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by shanek
Why would it have to? The Constitution merely says that Congress must declare war before American troops can be used in battle (unless they're responding to a direct attack). They just want Congress and the President to follow the Constitution.

I'm hip, shane. Understanding that it doesn't technically have to address the matter, wouldn't it be wise to consider the political implications for allies joining us in said action?

How would a formal declaration of war by solely the US be received internationally while employing military forces of other nations (or would they be expected to follow suit)?

I'm just attempting to weigh the ramifications.

*** Addendum:

Since the joint resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Iraq cites conformity to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, would that law also be unconstitutional?

I know shane will enlighten me. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wolverine
I'm hip, shane. Understanding that it doesn't technically have to address the matter, wouldn't it be wise to consider the political implications for allies joining us in said action?

I'm sure it would; I'm also sure it would be wise to address the alliances in the first place, considering that such alliances are the way that a lone assassination escalated into World War I. And given the number of countries that seem to be opposing the US action in Iraq, how do we know the same thing won't happen again? How do we know this won't lead to World War III?

How would a formal declaration of war by solely the US be received internationally while employing military forces of other nations (or would they be expected to follow suit)?

That I don't know; but I don't see how it would be received any differently than by our attacking Iraq without such a declaration.

Since the joint resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Iraq cites conformity to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, would that law also be unconstitutional?

That's a whole other can of worms you're opening. My reading of the act is that the power to declare war is still in the hands of Congress, so I would say it's been misinterpreted if they're using it as justification. However, I haven't heard their justification directly, so I can't really rebut it.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by shanek
However, I haven't heard their justification directly, so I can't really rebut it.

Here's the text, if you're interested:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Not really trying to open the proverbial can o' worms (or hijack your thread, for that matter), just curious to know your interpretation.

[Advocate]

I am not sure I understand how "declaration of war" differs from "authorization of the use of force against". Are we talking magic words here? Congress has already authorized this war. If they want to take back that authorization, that is their right. But I don't think there is any point to saying Congress has not declared war. The President could not (legally anyway) attack Iraq had this resolution not been passed. It seems to me that war has already been declared by Congress. As far as I know there is no required wording in a declaration of war, so how is this authorization of force not the same thing? Could someone explain to me how a "declaration of war" is different than an "authorization to use force"?

[crackmonkey]

My thoughts exactly, Advocate.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shanek


Why would it have to? The Constitution merely says that Congress must declare war before American troops can be used in battle (unless they're responding to a direct attack). They just want Congress and the President to follow the Constitution.

Jon: I'm assuming that's sarcasm?
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14051