CONGRESS DID DECLARE WAR! Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists

U.S. Congress ^ | 9/14/2001 | U.S. Congress

[Austin Willard Wright]

Don't worry Hillary will use the act to arrest peaceniks who protest her wars.

[Austin Willard Wright]

So if a Tamil tiger flies to Paris and plants a bomb, does that mean that Tamil tigers have "global reach?"

[SunStar]

Congress did not declare war, and such a declaration was not necessary since a state of war already existed by an act of war by an enemy. War was declared on America and Congress authorized [and funded] the President to take the war back to the enemy. Yes, America is at war now whether America declared war or not.

Bingo!

[freeeee]

Let go of the Constitution

There's a word for that: Surrender.

[FreeTally]

The unanswerable question: What was so hard about declaring war the way the Constitution spells out?

Anytime the government does not follow the constitution by the letter, and makes up some specious argument to get to the same end without following the constitution, we must be very wary.

[SunStar]

So if a Tamil tiger flies to Paris and plants a bomb, does that mean that Tamil tigers have "global reach?"

When they attack us in an Act of War, then they have declared war on us. Until then, I'd say we should stick to the terrorist groups who have already attacked us.

[FreeTally]

I believe the enemy is "terrorist groups of global reach".

Cool! Lets get the IRA.

Oh, they are not a target? Huh!?

[FreeTally]

When they attack us in an Act of War, then they have declared war on us. Until then, I'd say we should stick to the terrorist groups who have already attacked us.

Slow down, hoss. You said, "I believe the enemy is "terrorist groups of global reach". Now, its only if they attack us. So its pretty much whoever King George tells the pesants it is, right?

[SunStar]

Cool! Lets get the IRA. Oh, they are not a target? Huh!?

When's the last time the IRA bombed anyone outside of the UK?

[freeeee]

This is why the War Powers Act is such a sore spot for so many.

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional as it rearranges the constitutionally designated method in which the different branches of government can wage war. Mainly, it allows the executive to declare and wage war independent of the legislature.

For such a radical redesign of government to be legitimate, it would have to have been passed as a constitutional amendment. It was not. Mere legislation is inferior to constitutional directives. Once upon a time, conservatives knew that.

[SunStar]

Slow down, hoss. You said, "I believe the enemy is "terrorist groups of global reach". Now, its only if they attack us. So its pretty much whoever King George tells the pesants it is, right?

Nice one. You sound just like Paul Begala. Good job.

TERRORISTS WHO ATTACKED US OR RELATED PERSONS AND NATIONS ARE OUR ENEMIES. GOT IT YET?

[SunStar]

Mere legislation is inferior to constitutional directives. Once upon a time, conservatives knew that.

Doesn't the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make that determination?

[FreeTally]

The justifications for violating the Constitution are almost staggering. I have gotten an exercise from all the mental yoga displayed here. See, they start with an end(legal war, in this case), then find a justification(means) exclusive of the constitutional guidelines. Seems silly when all this could have been avoided with a formal declaration of war. But hey, lets not piss of all those insurance policy holders who would been out of luck, thus really looking for an explanation as to why the government didn't stop this.

[NormsRevenge]

Good Job !! Some folks just don't want to offend the terrorists, it would seem. So they throw up all these arguments and wrap the flag and cry Foul!! They don;t like being told they are in fact the ones out of touch with reality. There isn;t a helluva lot you can do to lift the blinders from some folks eyes so they can actually see what is happening . Sighhh

[freeeee]

What was so hard about declaring war the way the Constitution spells out?

You're getting close to the real issue here.

I would rephrase the question as "Why won't Congress declare war, and why doesn't the administration want them to?"

The administration didn't ask Congress to drop its pending declaration of war for no good reason. Are we afraid to ask why?

Is an insurance policy good enough reason to ingore the Constitution? We blow billions on everything under the sun, how about compensating the WTC owners if the insurance policy becomes invalid if Congress does its duty?

Or is there an even more insidious reason, one we're all wary of: A real declaration of war means that one day, war powers would end. And some people desperately don't want that to ever happen.

[FreeTally]

So it's not "terrorists groups of worldwide reach"? So this isn't really a "war on terrorism", then is it. It's an illegal use of war powers on criminals who have no country.

[SunStar]

It's an illegal use of war powers on criminals who have no country.

So, what you are implying is that since there is no state to blame, we cannot pursue our enemies?

[FreeTally]

Is an insurance policy good enough reason to ingore the Constitution? We blow billions on everything under the sun, how about compensating the WTC owners if the insurance policy becomes invalid if Congress does its duty?

Or is there an even more insidious reason, one we're all wary of: A real declaration of war means that one day, war powers would end. And some people desperately don't want that to ever happen.

Yep, and I think possibly the "insurance policy holders" go hand in hand with the questions that we don't want to ask. If the policies were null with a declaration of war, and the government(tax payers) didn't bail them out, then there would be thousands looking for the truth because of anger.

[FreeTally]

So, what you are implying is that since there is no state to blame, we cannot pursue our enemies?

Not at all, which is the first conclusion people on your side want to jump to. The President just can not be granted Executive War Powers. It's that simple.

We know which countries support and harbor terrorists. IF the Prez and congress were serious about a war on terrorism that has a demonstrative end, then they would declare war on all of those countries.

[freeeee]

Doesn't the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make that determination?

No. Amendments are covered by article V, and nowhere does Article V list SCOTUS as being able to amend the Constitution.

Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Conservatives used to decry judicial activism. But as ususal, when it suits their purposes....