Posted on 02/15/2003 3:51:16 PM PST by GrandMoM
War is all about oil The Constitution is the basis for all laws in our country. The president must take a constitutional oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president has declared that he’ll use our armed forces to attack Iraq. This would involve many thousands of soldiers and would mean war by any definition.
Regarding the powers invested in Congress, the Constitution says, "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque. ..." This gives Congress the exclusive right to declare war; no other branch of our government has that right. If the president wants a war with Iraq, he must request it from Congress and Congress must vote. This is the only constitutional way our country can go to war.
If the president starts a war, he’ll be in violation of his oath of office and should be impeached. It’s the duty of all citizens to demand that our Constitution be followed.
North Korea has spit in the president’s face saying "Yes, we have nuclear weapons, yes, we have the missiles to deliver them and yes, we’re going to build more. Oh, by the way, we’re pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty also."
Our government’s reaction? "Gee, would you like us to send you some money or anything else we can do or you can use?
Have we found Osama? Is al-Qaida vanquished? That’s "almost" two wars being fought concurrently, not resolved, but heck, let’s start another war with Iraq, never mind that North Korea is armed, dangerous and defying the U.S. and U.N., and that we’ve no allies except Tony Blair, who’ll surely be voted out of office due to his support of Bush’s war plans.
The war? It’s all about oil, folks.
JIM PURDY
SANTA CRUZ
Iraqi link a Bush ploy For months, the administration has been embarrassed by the weakness of its case for war. Inspectors have just begun their work. The previous round of inspections — with less strength than this one — destroyed more Iraqi weapons than we destroyed in the 1991 war.
Wouldn’t it be better to let inspectors destroy any possible weapons than to risk having them used against our troops or civilians?
The weakest link in the war case has been any alleged connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.
Now the Bush administration plans to release "new evidence" of an al-Qaida link. A long-time senior member of the House Intelligence Committee who now serves on the 9-11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, says the Bush administration "will look for any kind of evidence to support their premise; I think we have to be skeptical about it." I agree.
Not long ago Bush was heard to say "He tried to kill my father." speaking about Saddam Hussein. Is all this about vindication?
AINE SWEENEY
BEN LOMOND
On the eve of our
....very entertaining and very desperate!
The last time Congress formally declared war was in December 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor more than a half-century ago.
How, then, did Congress avoid its constitutional power - or duty - to declare war over Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf?
The answer is that Congress played it safe. It gave the three presidents - Truman, Johnson, Bush I - something, without having to go on record as formally declaring war.
Reason why Presidents no longer need Congressional Declarations of War - Legal Precedence-Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
In short, part of that decision states that if Congress sees a President preparing for war and does nothing to stop him that they(Congress) are actively agreeing to it.
If the president starts a war, he’ll be in violation of his oath of office and should be impeached. It’s the duty of all citizens to demand that our Constitution be followed.
Highly unlikely, should it ever get to the USSC Article II would trump Article I and Congress would be unwilling to answer why they didn't stop the buildup of force.
The above referenced link lays it all out in great detail.
Someone should also clue Saddam in on the fact that, the bombs will be real this time, not filled with cement like the ones his Marxist buddy bill clinton dropped on him in 1998.
Here's the kicker. I am a petroleum geologist. About 10 years ago I worked on a team that did an exhaustive study of the petroleum potential of the offshore Santa Cruz Basin(also known as the offshore La Honda Basin, or the offshore Ano Nuevo Basin). There are several small oil fields onshore. Offshore, where the basin is much larger, thicker, and less eroded, there are dozens of large "prospects." There were even two wells drilled offshore in the mid-1960's. Both of those wells discovered heavy crude. The problem was, at that time, the oil was worth about $2.00 per barrels. It wasn't economic to produce it. That same oil today would be worth about $25 per barrel (given the time-value of money). One recent Federal Government estimate put the potential in the Ano Nuevo basin at about one BILLION barrels. Right off of Santa Cruz.
So if the lefties up in the Monterey Bay area really want to stop the impending war, they can petition the Government to open up drilling off of Santa Cruz!!
As President, Jefferson drew upon precedents of Washington and Adams to argue that offensive military operations required a declaration of war from Congress, while defensive operations did not. But that general understanding did not provide justification alone for Jefferson's decision to send the Navy to the Mediterranean.
He relied on statutes passed on 3 March 1801 and 6 February 1802 that clearly gave him the authority to repel any attack on American ships and to "subdue, seize, and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli...."
Between 1801 and 1813, Congress passed more than a half-dozen statutes that defined how presidents Jefferson and Madison could act to end the conflict.
Jefferson had the support of the Congress and of the people. Nuff said.
Actually, no. Congress authorized "the use of force" to defend an ally, Kuwait. The last time America declared war on any nation was in 1942. We employ "the use of force" to protect our international interests and to defend our allies.
The mechanism that Congress uses for employing military force or preventing military force is through funding. For an example, Congress provided funds for the Vietnam war for nearly 15 years; we got out of that war not through military defeat, but simply because Congress refused to fund any further efforts.
There may be a time when a formal declaration of war becomes necessary, but under most circumstances it is, at best, impractical. Congress authorizes the President to use military force when necessary so that he (or she) can act decisively in the defense of American interests and in defense of our allies. In most cases, for the President to be hamstrung by weeks or months of debate in Congress would give stratigic advantage to any force that threatens the US.
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.