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

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

[SunStar]

Like we did in Bosnia perhaps ;-) Ooops that was a police action.

That was different. Bound by NATO's decisions, we were required by the NATO charter to act.

[William Tell]

moneyrunner said: "The last place I would look for my personal protection is you waving your copy of the Constitution. As to my concern about your withdrawal of consent; well as Rhett Butler said to Scarlet O’Hara in “Gone With the Wind:” “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” '

I am glad we have that cleared up. If there does come a day when the red-zone defies the blue-zone, may I assume that you do not intend to join in the fray? Or will you use force of arms to govern me without my consent?

[William Tell]

SunStar said: "That was different. Bound by NATO's decisions, we were required by the NATO charter to act."

No. We were bound to nullify the NATO charter. Congress has the power to declare war. Not NATO.

[NormsRevenge]

LOLOL .. Now I stepped in it :-)

NUTTO..urr NATO

Oh yeah we still have treaties these days.

[William Tell]

NormsRevenge said: :It would appear our strength is our weakness, that we are fearful of loosing the hounds of war, unless all is documented and bought off by everyone. "

Yes. ( And yes, we do agree on a lot. )

The Constitution may not be the perfect form of government but it is far superior to whatever it is that is in use now. Exercising the self-discipline to declare war when it is justified will have the additional benefit of allowing us to remain "neutral" in circumstances which are none of our business. Globalism is a bad idea which presumes that ideas do not have to be tested and found effective.

The fall of the Soviet Union is one of the clearest indicators of the ineffectiveness and tyranny of Marxism. Other nations who practice ineffective government need to compete with us to see the limitations of their systems.

Any nation which disarms it citizens is practicing an inferior form of government and is undeserving of our aid.

[vannrox]

Excellent Work. I think that you did good with this post.

[thepitts]

Regardless of how you twist the facts congress did not make a declaration of war.

[SunStar]

Excellent Work. I think that you did good with this post.

Thanks!

At least this thread has allowed us to revisit the issue with the Joint Resolution in-hand...

[NormsRevenge]

Dittos

[SunStar]

Regardless of how you twist the facts congress did not make a declaration of war.

Thanks for your opinion.

[KentuckyWoman]

thought it reads more like a 'Writ of Attorney' that any declaration

Yessiree! A DOW would have to state not only the Country in question but would need to include a set objective which would need to culminate in either a surrender or some sort of peace treaty. This is why both Korea and Vietnam ended with "cease fires". They were both UN police actions that we had no business being involved in (not in ANY way to disparage those of our gallant men and women who fought in these "actions"). The document currently up for consideration here has no set provisions for its end and is therefore, not a valid DOW. It only provides the office of President (no matter who that might be in the future) broad powers to abuse both the Constitution and the soverign citizens of this Nation at his discretion.

[RightWhale]

This resolution certainly acted as a declaration of war. Against Japan. Unnecessary, but clarified the situation. Congress can declare any time they want, and they didn't have to in this case. Germany also jumped in and declared war on America. Did Congress declare war on Germany or Italy? It might also be noted that a declaration of war by Congress might give the President some unusual, even unconstitutional powers, powers that he does not have now.

I hope that Congress declares war on Iraq before the invasion itself begins. Maybe they don't actually have to, but they can for any reason or for no reason at all, and they should to clarify the situation and silence our detractors.

[RBroadfoot]

Here's an example of a REAL Declaration of War:

Congressional Declaration of War on Japan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 8, 1941
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

1) It's a joint resolution declaring the existance of a state of war.
2) It concisely explains the reasons for the existance of a state of war.
3) It explicitly describes with whom a state of war exists.
4) It makes a FORMAL declaration of war and commits the resources of the nation to bring it to successful conclusion.


Congress' WPA resolution only does #1 and #2. It only vaguely does #3 and does not do #4. It is not a formal declaration of war.

Certainly, a state of war exists, but there has not been a formal declaration of war. BTW, where does the War Powers Act authorize suspension of habeas corpus and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

[moneyrunner]

I am joined in the “fray” as you put it. However, unless I misunderstand your views, I would be embarrassed to find you on my side. There is room in the large tent on the Right for serious people of many persuasions who wish to rein in an intrusive government, reduce the burden of taxation, and restore lost Constitutional principles. But we won’t do this with otherworldly debates about whether a joint congressional resolution includes the phrase “a state of war exists …” or not.

We are in a war. We have an enemy. This is demonstrated by the 3,000 dead on 9/11. By the bombings of our embassies and the attacks on our ships.

We either fight the war or we do not. Bush has been given the power to do so by a joint resolution of Congress, just as power was conferred on previous Presidents by joint resolutions. That, by the way, is the form that these things take: Joint Resolutions.

What seems to throw a lot of people is that we were not attacked by a country. We were not attacked by enemy missiles, tanks or planes. That is why it’s so difficult for people with fixed ideas of what war is to understand the current situation. They refuse to think outside the box. They want their enemies nice and neat, and their joint resolutions “just so.” Well, let your mind adapt. Learn to understand the current situation. It doesn’t require a fleet of aircraft carriers launched from an identified country to wipe out New York City. A people and a government that does not understand that is as dead as the Dodo. Especially when you have literally millions of people who want you dead and who dance in the streets and give their children candy when your buildings burn and your fellow citizens die.

[agitator]

Y'know, I get really tired of people that don't read what I said and then project their erection on me. Read what I said and look up the quote I used, I'm not going to repeat myself. Search engines abound and legal dictionaries are easy to come by.

A range of Constitutional experts

An "expert" has been defined as someone who reads the same books you do. I'm not impressed with talking heads on the toob.

(and some would argue, archaic)

I'm glad you don't appear to be making that argument. Liberals use this argument every time they want to extract something non-existent in the Constitution.

Simply because Congress did not use that phrase in its resolution, what would you have us do? Fail to act while we debate and try to resolve these issues.

Why are you making excuses for the failure of Congress to act as they're required? Your beef is with Congress, not me. It's not my fault they either don't know what they're doing, they have a hidden agenda, are a bunch of mealy-mouthed pissants, or don't have a command of the English language. Tell them to do their jobs or tell the voters to get somebody who can.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I think there is indeed a lot of nitpicking going on here. It is obvious that in our nation's history there is a difference between the use of military force and a state of war between the United States and other sovereign nations, from the action against France, to the siege at Harper's Ferry and the Civil War itself, to the conflict with the Barbary Pirates, to various interventions in South America and the Caribbean, to the pursuit of Pancho Villa, to Ronald Reagan's actions in the Persian Gulf against Iran.

It is quite apparent that President Bush requested the approval of Congress prior to hostilities and it was granted. There seems to even be a confusion of the legal status of a Joint Congressional Resolution, as they were used in the process of such important acts as the admission of Texas to the Union and the annexation of Hawaii. In fact some declarations of war have been called Joint Resolutions.

Compare the wording of these various Declarations, and the recent Joint Resolution for the use of force after 911:

DECLARATION OF WAR WITH SPAIN

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, First.  That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the 21st day of April, A. D. 1898, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.

Second.  That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States to such extent as may be necessary to carry this act into effect.

Approved, April 25, 1898.

DECLARATION OF WAR WITH GERMANY IN WWI

WHEREAS, The Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and

That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.  

AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISM

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 treacherous 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      

(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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Did anyone ever think that maybe the reason we didn't declare against Afghanistan as a nation was to prevent all Afghans from rallying against a common enemy?        

[SoCal Pubbie]

BTW, I think it was shown by better legal and insurance experts than I at the time that the lack of a formal declaration of war was not an insurance scam. Acts of war do not protect in cases of liability.

[Iron Eagle]

Being at war and having the authority to use force are not the same as a declaration of war. Legally, there is a distinction. Though, to the terrorists we kill, I am sure they don't care about those differences. A full declaration of war is different than authorizing the use of force, which has distinct limitations on the President in the actions he can take both internationally, and at home. (A declaration of war would permit much greater restrictions of personal liberties and many other actions. Accordingly, we are not quibbling.

[mrsmith]

Jefferson and Adams paid for our Constitution and they knew what it meant.

You two don't have a clue.

Until you can say why you understand it better than they, quit making fools of yourselves.

[mrsmith]

"I have seen it stated on FR that the US Congress did declare war on the Barbary Pirates"

In 1815, during Madison's administration, they declared war.
Jefferson just had a resolution.