What if Bush violates the constitution?

You know, the constitution reserves the right to make war to the Congress. Congress is to "declare war".

Now, I know that Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to use force. But, the Congress also has passed laws that the Supreme Court later found un-constitutional and set those laws aside (the line item veto is one such law that Congress voted on, passed and was later invalidated).

So...I'm not sure that just because the Congress voted on a use of force resolution for Iraq...that it means that Congress is "off the hook" for declaring war if we invade Iraq.

Certainly one side of this issue has to do with the people of our armed forces having the right to see the will of the people of the United States expressed in a clear (and constitutional) manner if we are asking them to risk their lives for us. I'm not sure the Congress can constitutionally abdicate their responsibility for declaring war.

Any true constitutionalists out there? What say you?

By the way...why wouldn't we want Congress to formally declare war? Is there anything wrong with what the framers of the constitution had in mind?

Is the War Powers Act is still in effect? This would provide for the president to come to Congress for a declaration of war within 100 days of the initiation of military action.
If they haven't revoked it, (there was such a move once), or if the "use of force" resolution hasn't trumped it, Congress will still have to declare war so their constitutional duties will be covered. Of course, it would have to be a pretty obviously illegitimate use of armed forces for congress NOT to go along with it and declare war after 100 days of action and propaganda. So the deck is pretty stacked for the executive branch to do whatever they want as long as they can come up with any rationale.
For the reasons you cite, I would want a formal declaration of war from congress. But ONLY after a reasonable period of deliberation. Therein lies the rub. Meanwhile we may have to engage. I think that's the original intent of the War Powers Act. To give time for deliberation without delaying necessary and urgent military action.

I fear gutless Democrats abdicated their responsibility to make a decision because they wanted to get the vote behind them and talk about the economy. The situation is now sufficiently muddied that impeachment would be impossible. Had they demanded a connection between September 11 and Sadam, and withheld their vote when the connections was not made, it might have emboldened some equally gutless Republicans to vote their concience instead of the party line.

There is still the matter of paying for the war. Bush put nothing in the budget for it, so at some point he must come back for an "emergency" appropriation. Congress could choose to not fund it.

Yes, War Powers Act is still in effect. A few Republicans tried to get it rescinded when Clinton was using it to distract us from his legal difficulties and "bimbo eruptions" but were soundly shouted down by the Demo enablers.

Funny, but it seems that when liberals and leftists are "in charge" things like the War Powers Act are just fine, and the "Constitution is a 'living document' and the Supreme Court is a bunch of right wing fascists if they rule against the leftist agenda.

But when there is a Conservative in charge, the left-wingers want the War Powers Act and such to be gone, and want to take every little dispute to the Supreme Court... Obstructionalism as usual.

BTW, I am a strict, literal, Constitutionalist by nature, so I am not really defending the War Powers Act, just trying to point out the hypocracy of the left.

And Yes, I would like to see Congress vote on declaring war.

Unfortunately, SO many in Congress aren't Americans first. MOST Democrats are Democrats (or even further left)first, and will oppose any Conservative measure even if it is better for the country as a whole.

Most Republicans are also similarly conflicted: They will only put the good of the nation first if they are sure that their position won't lose them votes in the next election.

There are of course notable exceptions on both sides of the Aisle, but few are willing to sacrifice either personal power or political agenda for the "mere" benefit of the American public.

So, I view the War Powers Act as a choice between the lesser of two evils; Potential abuse by whoever is President VS the need to move quickly when the Nation is actually threatened. Even if you take intrercontinental missiles out of the equation, a war can be over by the time that Congress decides on who gets to sit in what chair during the comittee meetings.

If we had Patriots and Satesmen instead of a passle of politicians in Congress, we could have a strictly Constitutional government.

Well, at least the far left and the far right agree on the Poindexter's little "Total Information" project. Who would have thought there could be common ground.

[ QUOTE ]
Silviron said:
....But when there is a Conservative in charge, the left-wingers want the War Powers Act and such to be gone, and want to take every little dispute to the Supreme Court... Obstructionalism as usual....


[/ QUOTE ]

Is there now an attempt by Democrats to repeal the War Powers Act? What are you talking about?
And what "little dispute" are they taking to the Supreme Court?
Where's the hypocrisy?

[ QUOTE ]
Evan said:
Well, at least the far left and the far right agree on the Poindexter's little "Total Information" project. Who would have thought there could be common ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Politicians, being what they are, want any tool that gives them power over the people whom they purport to serve... Hmm- I'm starting to sound like Unanimous Consent / Gun Nut...

Still, you shouldn't be surprised by this.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there now an attempt by Democrats to repeal the War Powers Act? What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not talking about our elected legislators in this particular instance, I'm talking about the "peace marchers" and some of the media people and assorted rabble-rousers. The Congressional democrats are happy for it right now because it allows them to not have to make a stand, and after whatever happens, happens they can make the most political capital possible out of it.

Well, it's a little after midnight and I thought I'd see how the 3 threads I started today are doing (sort of like minding the gardening /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif). This one has stayed truer to the original intent than the other two. For those that have posted in that direction...Thanks!

But let me restate one of the questions:

"By the way...why wouldn't we want Congress to formally declare war? Is there anything wrong with what the framers of the constitution had in mind?"

One poster agreed we ought to have a vote...thanks for the "on thread" contribution!
One poster talked about "gutless" [congressmen]...again, on thread (a little bent toward one party though /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

O.K., On topic response: No. The framers had it right. War is something that should only be done after serious deliberation and is too grave to be left to one person. Defensive military action can and should be undertaken prior to a declaration of war, when necessary. But it should not be allowed to be manipulated into a full fledged war as can too easily happen given the long time frame of the War Powers Act; 100 days if I remember right. Nowadays, 100 days is enough time for any president to start and finish what would be considered a full scale war 30 years ago. So, in effect, it allows an administration to destroy any foreign country with no input from congress, at least until additional funding becomes necessary. Not to overstate the case, but this is the stuff from which dictatorships are made.

The gutless Democrats may have shown more spine given a reasonable time frame in which to deliberate & evaluate LEGITIMATE intelligence and the public's input about this matter. Yes, despite what the bushies think, the public's opinion does matter.

"Framers"? As in founding fathers?

If I had to guess what the main reason is that Congress will not vote to declare war, it's because that would force them to take some responsibility for what happens. It's much easier for all concerned of each party to wash their hands of it and blame the president for whatever happens.

As far as I can tell the whole reason for them to give up the power to the president in the first place is because they just don't want that responsibility.

Nobody wants to get caught without a seat when the music stops...

I would really not want to put it to a popular vote. We're a republic not a democracy and in theory I agree with that. We have destroyed public education in this country and so the average person knows nothing about government and is not qualified to have a direct say in the decision making process. The problem is that we've slowly legislated away the checks and balances that kepts it from turnining too far the other way. I would pay any amount of taxes necessary to make public education work as there is no better solution to all our problems than an educated and interested populace.

When the original patriot act was passed it was sugar coated as "temporary and necessary" but I have never seen a government ever give back any temporary powers have you? And now we have patriot act 2.0 that will make it permenant and legal, see they want to keep it. It's not temporary. Right now they are busy listening in to the suspected terrorists, but if you think they wont use those same new police powers on you you're very very wrong.

I seem to have drifted off topic, but no more so than anybody else /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

OK. I had to read the thread from the beginning. Very confusing. The framers gave the President the power to start war by making him Commander In Chief. Then that was somewhat taken away by the War Powers Act. Long after the founding fathers were gone.

So if I read this thread right, you're lamenting Bush's inability to declare indefinite war or military action without congress.

And congress doesn't have to declare war. All they have to do is approve Bush's military action.

[ QUOTE ]
The framers gave the President the power to start war by making him Commander In Chief.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, not the President. While the President is both the top ranking civilian and military person in our country, that still doesn't allow him to declare war.

Jerry

I didn't say 'declare war'.

DavidW said: The framers gave the President the power to start war by making him Commander In Chief.

Actually, the constitution doesn't anyone in the military the power to "start war", including the commander in chief. I suppose you might mean that anyone that could sneak into a missle silo and somehow manage to lauch a missile has the "power to start a war". If that is what you mean, anyone that can launch an attack can start a war, then OK (I guess).

But any General who started a war by ordering an attack would be doing so illegally and would surely be prosecuted for such an action. It might be that Bush will be prosecuted if he orders an attack on Iraq with no declaration of war.

Remember, just because Congress passes legislation does not make something ultimately legal in our system of gov't. Many laws have been set aside by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

Nope. He can order a military action. Technically a war. I mean most people say 'Vietnam War'. A few say 'Vietnam Conflict'. But I don't recall hearing 'Vietnam Military Action'.

To stay within his powers all he has to do is inform congress within 48 hours of any military action. Bush then has to remove forces 60-90 days later if congress doesn't approve the military action or doesn't declare war.

Bush being charged and prosecuted of anything is just a wet dream of the opposition.

DavidW said: Bush being charged and prosecuted of anything is just a wet dream of the opposition

I agree that a Republican controlled congress will never vote to impeach "one of their own"...no matter what he may have done or however illegal any action might be. However, there are other forms of prosecution.

It's a wet dream because there is no violation. Please look up 'War Powers Act' and read.

No President has been charged/prosecuted for initiating any of our various conflicts, police actions, peace keeping missions, etc.

I see no reason to think that is going to change with our current President. So as long as he doesn't lie about his sex life while under oath /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif, I think he is safe.

Pat