Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CONGRESS DID DECLARE WAR! Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists
U.S. Congress ^ | 9/14/2001 | U.S. Congress

Posted on 06/14/2002 10:22:22 AM PDT by SunStar

Let's all re-read the Congressional Joint Resolution of September 14, 2001.

I'm sick and tired of all the supposed conservative Constitutional "defenders" (and plenty of Leftists as well) who continue to argue that President Bush is not entitled to War Powers, that he is acting in an inappropriate matter, that he is making "arbitrary" rules and regulations up as he goes, and that our Constitution is in jeopardy because Congress did not "Declare War".

Case in point: This was posted by a Freeper yesterday:

Yes War powers are in effect - without a war vote. Constitutional power is NO LONGER in effect. There'll be a lot more crying in the future, perhaps even you and your fellow Bill of Rights shredders. Too late by then tho. Enjoy it - while you can.

This is an example of a supposed conservative, who thinks President Bush is a dictator! Excuse me, but I think we are at war! Congress did in fact declare war. One can attempt to make a semantic argument over the title of the resolution, but the resolution itself says it all. I suggest that everyone keep a copy of this document handy, since the bogus "Congress did not declare war" argument is being used by the Left on a daily basis. The argument is faulty, and those who use it should be called on it. Congress did fact authorized President Bush to do exactly what he is doing -- make war on the enemy, and work to stop future attacks.

-SunStar



JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTS

September 14, 2001

This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

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

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

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.

Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.



From "The War Powers Act of 1973"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; congress; declarationofwar; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221 next last
To: FreeTally
"Of future presidents, we can have no confidence in the man. We must bind him down in chains, the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson

We have failed to do this for too long, we will pay the price

61 posted on 06/14/2002 11:31:55 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
The Barbary pirates were better defined and identified than al Qaeda, but I hope that you are correct. Thanks....
62 posted on 06/14/2002 11:33:12 AM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
I guess we need to turn the other cheek and let the terrorists nail us again .. and again ... The couple of constitution law toting fellas in here don't seem to get that lil piece of it and how they play into it. I could care less if a declaration is made formally or not, if it was insurance driven, so be it. Im shur Congre$$ would make everythng all better insurance wise in the end.

The undeniable fact is people were vaporized on 9-11 never to be seen again on this good earth. The hand wringers seem more concerned about details and an properly orchestrated sequence of events then wiping this terrorist vermin from this earth. This Orwellian talk is nothing but a bunch of hooey.
63 posted on 06/14/2002 11:33:14 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; sheltonmac
Let go of the Constitution

Wheee!!! Let go of the Constitution should we? Tell me, why bother fighting then? What exactly would we be fighting for? Safety? Freedom? You let go of the Constitution and you'll have one of them I promise you. In the past, the United States have steered away from the Constitution and in every instance the excuse given was for some greater cause whether it be 'saving the union' or 'extending freedom from our shores'. And in every instance, EVERY ONE!! more freedoms have been taken away from the citizens of the respective states that belong to this union. All for 'greater good'. Thanks, but no thanks. I kind of like my freedom, I like being able to say what I feel and go where I go without the general government following me every step of the way. Like they don't do that already!!

64 posted on 06/14/2002 11:34:59 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
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.

The Constitution says whatever the judges say it says today. It could say something else tomorrow. And unless you are the 9 supreme court justices what you say it says isn 't worth a warm pitcher of spit.

The Supreme court in Marbury Vs Madison said the constituion says what the justices say it says. And they can determine what it says in any old penumbra they care to look under.

The president of the United States can do anything the people will support including puting american citizens in concentration camps in WWII or suspending Habeas Corpus as Lincoln did in the civil war.

WE have not been a Constitutional Republic for 198 years. Not since Marbury Vs Madison. We are a Democracy overseen by Judical Fiat.

That power grab occured when the Democracy Advocates took over this Nation in 1800. It was a Contstitutional Republic in 1800 but it didn't last out the Jefferson(first Democrats) term. Democracy Advocates had the house, senate, Presidency and Supreme court in their control.

The Democracy Advocates (Democrats) converted us into the Democracy we have been ever since.

What part of a Democracy tempered by Judical Fiat don't you understand!


65 posted on 06/14/2002 11:36:51 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The hand wringers seem more concerned about details and an properly orchestrated sequence of events then wiping this terrorist vermin from this earth.

Yep! Just like the constitution points out. We are evil people, I tell 'ya.

Terrorism has existed since the beginning of time. It is caused by fanatics responding to foreign governments poking their noses into the affairs of other countries.

66 posted on 06/14/2002 11:36:55 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: steve50
We have failed to do this for too long, we will pay the price.

Unfortunately, you are correct.

67 posted on 06/14/2002 11:37:56 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
And as much as people want to believe this "resolution" holds the legal, constitutional force of decalring war, it doesn't. Plain and simple.

What nation should we declare war against?

68 posted on 06/14/2002 11:39:25 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I guess we need to turn the other cheek and let the terrorists nail us again .. and again ...

Um no. We want a declaration of war. Usually that is followed by lots of our solders killing the enemy. Declaring war isn't "turning the other cheek", ya think?

if it was insurance driven, so be it

We ignore the Constitution, paid for with the blood of our founders, over a freakin insurance policy, and you're ok with that. I think I'm going to be sick.

This Orwellian talk

Oh, there's some Orwellian talk going on alright. "War is Peace". That's the message here. Unofficial, unending war is the entire cornerstone of "1984". Here, read it for yourself:

1984

69 posted on 06/14/2002 11:40:50 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: billbears
These are extraordinary times. I rekkun my comment has gotten misabsorbed by some folks. "Lett go of the Constitution" implies that there are times that man must stand and trust what is in his heart and not what is on paper. All you folks would give the terrorists there day in court is what I see going on here and using the Constitution and War Powers Acts as smoke screens to allow those who disagree with the methods and manners of waging war on terrorism be throttled so we can fight a "Proper" war. If I messed with your minds, Sorry, I know what Im meant to say, but didn't add enough to flesh it out.
70 posted on 06/14/2002 11:41:12 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

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

That's not what I was referring to. The SCOTUS decides if new laws are Constitutional. They have repeatedly ruled on this issue in the past, but people like you refuse to agree with any law made past the 1780's.

71 posted on 06/14/2002 11:42:25 AM PDT by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
No, I just think your focus is fuzzy is all. I don't think you or otheres are eveil, but I do wish you would quit crying by the book, The terrorists don't.
72 posted on 06/14/2002 11:43:33 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
What nation should we declare war against?

Lets see, Afganistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Omen, Rowanda, Somali just to name a few. The entire world should join in if terrorism is such a big threat.

73 posted on 06/14/2002 11:44:14 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: billbears
And in every instance, EVERY ONE!! more freedoms have been taken away from the citizens of the respective states that belong to this union.

Yeah, those pesky Japanese-American internment camps are still running 50 years after-the-fact! This is an outrage! [/Sarcasm]

74 posted on 06/14/2002 11:44:43 AM PDT by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
That's not what I was referring to. The SCOTUS decides if new laws are Constitutional.

A resolution isn't even a law. It has no force of law in any manner.

75 posted on 06/14/2002 11:45:42 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
No offense intended but I think you already are sick ... as I am of this nation';s citizens being at war with each other at a time when we should be at war with our true enemies.
76 posted on 06/14/2002 11:46:50 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
We ignore the Constitution, paid for with the blood of our founders, over a freakin insurance policy, and you're ok with that. I think I'm going to be sick.

That makes two of us, and the rest of his posts are not helping the situation.

77 posted on 06/14/2002 11:47:03 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
I understand what you're saying. In fact, I agree that's how it works. I hold no illusions that this is still a Republic.

However, this is where the Declaration of Independence kicks in. We may be in practice ruled by SCOUTUS, and other branches independent of the Constitution, but such rule is illegitimate.

All political power is held by the People and exercised through the Consent of the Governed. You can read the rest of the DoI, and get the picture.

78 posted on 06/14/2002 11:47:11 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
A resolution isn't even a law. It has no force of law in any manner.

Yes, but it expresses the will of Congress, which is the key point here. Both houses of Congress AGREED and FULLY AUTHORIZED the use of military force. PERIOD.

79 posted on 06/14/2002 11:47:47 AM PDT by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Lets see, Afganistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Omen, Rowanda, Somali just to name a few. The entire world should join in if terrorism is such a big threat.

But do the terrorists control the governments there, or are they merely part of a network? This is not as simple as the Japs bombing Pearl Harbor.

80 posted on 06/14/2002 11:47:50 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson