It's official- Bush asks congress for declaration of war on Iraq

[chequita guevara]

Nowherre in the Constitution does it define how Congress must declare war. It is therefore left to Congress how to define this. If Congress simply wants to authorize the use of force, that's a legal declaration of war.

At least Bush isn't foring a Constitutional crisis on the matter. But Congress will still give him his war.

[Q Classic]

ah, i see the point DF is making. semantics, if you ask me.

legality would be nice if it applied to real world nations, along with karma. alas, it's not always the case.

invading iraq w/o congressional approval may be illegal, but who is going to call him out on it and punish him for that?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
At least Bush isn't foring a Constitutional crisis on the matter.

Campbell v. Clinton would probably have covered Bush's arse.

[SlowwHand]

Well, it's not his war, Che.

[David Floyd]

Fez,

Uhh don't misstate what I was saying... and Saddam probably won't be around next year. But if he was, he could launch chemcial or biological weapons killing thousands.

Then how is this any business of the US, unless it is killing Americans in the United States?

Lefty,

The constituion do not in any way define a DOW or describe its form. A DOW is what ever congress decides it is.

Obviously so, and if Congress explicity defines an authorization for the use of force as a DOW, then I will accept that the use of that force is Constitutional.

chegitz,

If Congress simply wants to authorize the use of force, that's a legal declaration of war.

Only if Congress comes out and says as much. You can't just assume that's what they mean.

Q,

invading iraq w/o congressional approval may be illegal, but who is going to call him out on it and punish him for that?

Unfortunately, no one. In a perfect world, Congress would impeach him.

[H Tower]

CNN goofs again!

Did anyone notice that part of the CNN article where they made a mistake quoting the House Majority Whip Tom DeLay?

In big bold letters he is quoted as saying: "'I think military action is inevitable.' "

but in the article it says "The president began to make his case to us today," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, saying more "clarity" is needed. He added that an attack on Iraq is not inevitable. "

notice how these two statements contradict each other

[chequita guevara]

DF, your Constitutional chi is weak.

[David Floyd]

I don't see how anything I said on here is controversial. Congress must declare war in order to make an attack legal. I've admitted that they can define a declaration of war as whatever they want it to be, but we can't just assume that's what they mean without them saying so.

What's the problem with that reasoning?

[chequita guevara]

No where in the Consitution does it say that a Declaration of war has to be called such. All it says it that only Congress can declare war. If Congress simply authorizes the funds so the President can go have his fun, it meets the technical requirements.

[Ned]

Everyone knows how FUBAR the Vietnam War was precisely because Congress, in its infinite wisdom, did NOT declare war on North Vietnam. Let's hope Congress has the balls to simply declare war this time.

Here is the Tonkin Gulf resolution:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress. "

[chequita guevara]

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a declaration of war, it simply limited the scope of the war, in order to prevent an even larger war which almost surely would have broken out. Congerss is entirely within its power to define limits to the war.

In any event, the problem with the Vietnam War wasn't Congress. It was the determination of the Vietnamese people not to be cowed by America and the American military structure, primarily the former.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a declaration of war, it simply limited the scope of the war, in order to prevent an even larger war which almost surely would have broken out. Congerss is entirely within its power to define limits to the war.

In any event, the problem with the Vietnam War wasn't Congress. It was the determination of the Vietnamese people not to be cowed by America and the American military structure, primarily the former.

Che, I disagree that our strategy in Vietnam was ever sound and only failed because the Vietnamese were "tough."

[David Floyd]

No where in the Consitution does it say that a Declaration of war has to be called such. All it says it that only Congress can declare war. If Congress simply authorizes the funds so the President can go have his fun, it meets the technical requirements.

No, it certainly has not met the requirements.
Congress has the following power in terms of making war:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

A declaration of war is indeed anything Congress says it is, but Congress has to actually tell us that a non-traditional declaration of war is a declaration of war. We can't just assume that an allocation of funds is a declaration of war.

Congerss is entirely within its power to define limits to the war.

Now you are overstating legislative power. Congress can declare war, and they can control funding, but they can't tell the Executive Branch how to run the war once it has been declared. They can cut off the war, they can influence the President by threatening to do so, but they can't force him to do anything once they've declared war. At least that's how I'm reading it.

[Ned]

David, Read the Tonkin Gulf resolution, last paragrahph on the issue of whether Congress can call a halt.

[David Floyd]

Just because Congress says it can do something doesn't mean that they can.
From my reading of the Constitution, Congress can declare war, and Congress can control funding, but outside of that they can't limit the prosecution of the war.
Sure, they could say that "If you go beyond this limit we will cut off funding" or "If you don't end the war we will cut off funding", but they can't say "You may not go beyond this limit" or "You must end the war right now".