July 08, 2008
— Gabriel Malor Baldilocks spotted the news this morning that foolish former government officials are proposing to further restrict the president's power to wage war. They acknowledge that the War Powers Act is largely unconstitutional, but then suggest that the an equally unconstitutional replacement be created. A "consultative process" must be in place for approving or disapproving "significant armed conflict" because (they claim) such a process does not already exist.
Oh, but it does. Article I, sec. 8 gives to Congress the power to declare war and Article II, sec. 2 gives to the President the power to wage it. There's your consultative process. Baldilocks skips the pretext and goes right to the real issue here: the Iraq War and the Democrats' inability to move legislation to stop it.
What was the purpose of H.J. Res. 114 (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)? Did the president require anything further?
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedent.
The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations a step most Democrats weren't willing to make because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way.
The democrats didn't have enough votes to do what they wanted to do. And?
Perhaps I'm missing something.
She's not missing anything. Congress has the power to halt the war at any time. It just hasn't meaningfully exercised that power. Since they are so helpless, many Democrats and even many Republicans, including Ron Paul, Alberto Gonzales, and James Baker, have attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Iraq War by claiming that it is not a "proper" war. They are, each and every one of them, constitutionally illiterate on that topic. As Baldilocks points out, the AUMF is enough to declare war and periodic funding is enough to continue it. There is no need for the legislation to contain the "magic words" Declaration of War.
Yeh - a "war council" would solve everything. If we just talked about the problem longer, that would fix it...
Posted by: Diogenes at July 08, 2008 07:14 AM (2MrBP)
Posted by: Neo at July 08, 2008 08:05 AM (Yozw9)
Posted by: Neo at July 08, 2008 08:07 AM (Yozw9)
Posted by: johN ryAn at July 08, 2008 09:48 AM (ukuxx)
As I said over at Baldi's:
Congress already has the tools it needs to do what it wants. Those tools require mustering veto-proof majorities, and the spine to pull funding from troops in the field. The latter requirement pretty much guarantees that the former requirement will be very hard to meet.
Posted by: Tully at July 08, 2008 09:55 AM (tUyDE)
Any contention of military force between two nations is a public war. The war may be perfect, that is solemnized by a full declaration; or it may be an imperfect war limited to certain persons and places as authorized by the the appropriate powers. But it is a legal war no matter how limited or total the war is.
The Eliza, 4 US 37, 40 (1800) is a cite on this subject.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 08, 2008 10:05 AM (O9Cc8)
Posted by: JohnTant at July 08, 2008 11:16 AM (PFy0L)
Ron Paul only thinks he is GOP.
Posted by: Cincinnatus at July 08, 2008 11:21 AM (ZAlQ3)
Posted by: XBradHusseinTC at July 08, 2008 11:24 AM (pSXbN)
How can one reasonably use Ron Paul and thinking in the same sentence without invoking the negative?
Posted by: The Machine at July 08, 2008 11:37 AM (kLBpP)
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at July 08, 2008 01:06 PM (aHiF6)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at July 08, 2008 01:12 PM (WIxQ1)
Posted by: Grimmy at July 08, 2008 01:33 PM (AzzAY)
Good points, Gabe.
I believe you have missed one other war that was never declared: the Civil War. For the Union to declare war against the Confederacy would have legitimized it as a Nation-State. There was no way that could happen.
If I rightly recall, more Americans died in that war than all of the others we have fought combined.
Posted by: otcconan at July 08, 2008 01:54 PM (VLRPD)
The courts later answered the habeas corpus question by finding that a president has no power to suspend habeas corpus; Congress could do it pursuant to the suspension clause. The other questions went unanswered.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at July 08, 2008 02:27 PM (WIxQ1)
Posted by: ajacksonian at July 08, 2008 05:19 PM (oy1lQ)
Posted by: ravenshrike at July 08, 2008 07:08 PM (C63A/)
They exhibit the cowardice of their convictions.
Revenue bills must originate in the House. The Democratic majority can block funding. The rest is all political posturing.
Posted by: MarkD at July 09, 2008 05:03 AM (MMy4A)
I believe the term Lincoln used for the war was "insurrection." By that definition, the South were traitors to the Union and therefore were accorded no rights anyway.
That's just what I'm guessing.
Posted by: otcconan at July 10, 2008 12:11 AM (VLRPD)
Posted by: Slava at September 27, 2008 07:26 PM (FGRNb)
Posted by: iolanda at September 30, 2009 01:43 AM (YgE7Y)
Posted by: 出会い at October 10, 2009 06:37 AM (/WBMN)
Posted by: escort bayan at February 27, 2010 04:11 PM (d/Blv)
Posted by: escort bayan at April 18, 2010 08:06 PM (d/Blv)
Posted by: fsdfsd at November 24, 2010 04:49 PM (BMaGp)
Posted by: kerajinan tembaga at February 27, 2011 09:39 AM (deqo8)
Posted by: Troy Polamalu Jersey at November 19, 2011 07:21 AM (AubTE)
63 queries taking 2.9021 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.