Undermining the U.S. Constitution...

As some of you may(or not) know, the Senate passed the Iraq Resolution earlier tonight. One might say," It's about time those dumbass politicians did something to protect us." It makes one feel secure doesn't it? No more Weapons of Mass Destruction to hear about in the news. No more "serious" threats of terrorism on a day to day basis per Mr. Tom Ridge's color coded scale. Life couldn't be better. And then one might ask, "How does this undermine the Constitution?". After all it's for our own good.
Article 1 , Section 8 of the Constitution states, only Congress has the right to decide when we're at war, and I quote, "To declare War , grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,". All well and good so far. Except this resolution has given the President of United States a blank check to wage war against anyone in the Middle East that he deems "Public Enemy #1".

Quote:

---

Under the draft resolution, if the President determined an invasion of Iran or Saudi Arabia was necessary to restore peace to the Middle East or deal with the Iraqi threat, he could easily claim he does not need further Congressional approval......The draft resolution does not specify an objective..... By failing to specify an objective, the draft resolution does not provide any criteria for its expiration.....The draft resolution states that “the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.” Likewise, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution “support[ed] the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures,” implying the use of force was a decision for the President, not Congress.

---

Source

It's easy to give the President all these powers right now, as it does not require a 2/3 majority in both Congress and Senate. But if Congress wanted to take this power back, they would have to have a 2/3 majority....

And one might still wonder how this undermines the US Constitution?It undermines the Constitution because the Constitution makes NO allowances for "pre-emptive strikes". There is no such thing as pre-emptive self-defense.....

The Bush Adminstration, the House, and the Senate are setting a very bad precedent for the rest of the World. What's to stop everyone else from making their own "pre-emptive strikes", against International Law.

I forgot, we police the World.


Apologies to our friends from abroad, who might or might not care about this.

i have t oagree with you. our government has learned that they can undermine the constitution and not have any reprecussions. Pople dont take war seriously, and act like its a game. its a game of chess for polititions, sending us in like pawns......

Believe me Mahakaal, I do care. And I am really afraid of what is next. War is close now and the fact that it is only in Bush's hands to decide when makes me even more horrified.

Btw: the problem with the precedence: India is already claiming in the same way their right for self-defense against Pakistan and we know what that means...

I'm kinda on the fence about this issue.I believe we should go to war with Iraq,and probably a few other countries,but(as much as I think Bush is a damn good president) I don't think any one man in the US should have the kind of power to attack anyone who COULD pose a threat to us.
What's done is done,and I don't think anyone should jump all over Bush unless he abuses this power.I think he's had one of the toughest terms to be thrown on a presidents lap in history.We've had quite a few presidents that had to deal with war or had to deal with economic problems,but not very many have had to deal with both at the same time from start to finish like he's going to have to do.We've gotta give the guy some credit.He's done everything asked of him by congress and the UN up to this point.

News flash: The Constitution hasn't been worth the paper it's written on in over 150 years. Look at some of the usurpations of power during the Civil War, and it's been downhill since then. Welcome to planet Earth, my friend.

Quote:

---

And one might still wonder how this undermines the US Constitution?It undermines the Constitution because the Constitution makes NO allowances for "pre-emptive strikes". There is no such thing as pre-emptive self-defense.....

---

Where does the Constitution say that military force has to be in self-defense? My copy doesn't say that. Maybe I have a bad copy.

All it says is that Congress has the power to declare war and that the President is the commander in chief of the Army and Navy. Anything beyond that is a creature of either statute or judicial decision.

You're free to check out Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution which states...

Quote:

---

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress , lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay .

---

I never said the Constitution hadn't been abused in the past. This is all I can relate to in my life, at this point in time.

Quote:

---

You're free to check out Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution which states...

---

The operative word there being "State." Article I, Section 10 outlines limits on the powers of the individual states, not the Congress. That's in there to prevent Mississippi from declaring war on Alabama. :D

[EDIT] I didn't mean to come off sounding like a smart@ss.... I guess I've just seen enough to make me exceptionally jaded when it comes to these things. There was a time when I cared deeply about freedom and the rule of law, but I realize now that it's hopeless and I don't have the energy to care anymore. The machine will keep rolling along, and the best any of us can hope for is to just not get caught in the wheels.

I've been in the Marine Corps for 15 years and I have seen what Saddam is capable of doing. If he lets the UN Inspectors in and he dismantles what they find, then there will be no problems. It's up to Iraq as to how this works out, easy or not.
As long as Saddam complies, everything will be fine, but at least he knows now that we will not allow him to give us the run around.
I don't want war......but he is a major problem, and he's very volitile.

I think some of the people in this thread are missing the essence of what the topic is about. The concern isn't so much the fact that it's a pre-emptive strike, but the fact that the power to decide whether these strikes will occur or not now lays in the hands of one man. Since when did a democracy, (or republic) allow one man to decide whether or not we go to war? This is in total contrast to what our government was set up to do, and in strong unison to the government our forefathers once considered to be tyrannical. In fact, there is reason to believe that england is now more "democratic" then america is.

For any of you who skipped over mahakaal's quote at the bottom of his posts, here it is again. I think it's worth reading.

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caeser ."

Take that into consideration when deciding the actions of your government.

Congress is shamefully ducking its responsibility in this matter.
If the war goes well, they can claim that they "supported the president".
If it goes badly, they can claim that he alone is to blame.

Ever since WWII, US presidents have preferred to wage presidential war
because they have less interference from congress, and can increase
the powers of the presidency.

On Sept 11 2001, George should have sent a solemn message to
congress, asking them for a declaration of war naming the nations
and governments with whom we would be in a state of war.
He should also have reminded them that he would refuse to
put any of our troops in harm's way until that formal declaration was
on his desk.

A formal declaration of war is legal and moral cover for the president
and the officers and men who must do the fighting. Without it, they
can be accused of lawlessness and aggression. A declaration of war
means that the congress and the people have determined that
the war is both just and necessary, and that the military is not acting
on its own, but in defense of the nation and its people.

Quote:

---

December 11, 1941

The President's Message
To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt


The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared 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 Government of Germany 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 government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; 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

---

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

A declaration of war would also force each of us to declare which side we are on
Maybe that's why most people are willing to let george do it on his own.
We can then deny responsibility.
:cool:

Quote:

---

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress , lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay .

---

Doesnt the fact that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that could wipe out the entire region count as imminent danger ?

Maybe I am just playing into the Iraqi "propaganda" but the fact remains this guy has these weapons and will use them at will. All the countries in the region are in danger including the US citizens present in the region. Not waging war on someone like Hussein would be similar to the unforgettable policy of staying out of WWII for so many years. True we came in and whooped some butt after by late '42 but the US goverment completely ignored the problem for YEARS!

Remember history class? The "appeasment of Hitler" in the 30's.

Lets not appease another maniacal leader.

I vote for pre-emptive action....whatever the president and the leadership of this country deem fit.

-Xe

The President of the United States, until the late 1970's, in his (I say his because there have not yet been any hers) role as Commander in Chief, could deploy troops into combat without action by congress. I would have to do a little research, but I believe that President Madison's actions against the Barbary pirates (about the oldest example I can remember off the top of my head) was done without authorization by congress and was known as Madison's war (at least I think it was madison), and the actions in Vietnam is one of the more recent ones (and were the driving force behind the creation of the War Powers Act).

Since the War Powers Acts creation in the late 70's, the president of the US can still deploy troops into combat without congressional approval (can be costly politically, but just look at Grenada, Panama, and Haiti as recent examples), but is required to seek Congressional authorization if the action is to last past 60 days (but sometimes Congress doesn't enforce that, I think an example would be Bosnia...not 100% on that one though). Furthermore, Congress did not set an expiration on their original authorization for action in the persian gulf war and if you really wanted to get technical about it, GWB has all the authorization he needs.

Now whether or not this is the most well thought out thing in the world, whether or not it is blantantly ignorant to attack Iraq while the rest of the world opposes it, whether or not it is wise to topple a secular government with no plan for post-Saddaam rule, whether or not the danger is imminent enough to risk the lives of American soldiers, and a million other issues, are all in my mind far from answered and something I am not addressing, only the historical precedent of the US Presidents war powers....

/nebulus

Quote:

---

Doesnt the fact that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that could wipe out the entire region count as imminent danger ?

---

What proof have you seen? Coz I would definitely like to see it. Yes I've read the "incriminating" British Dossier on Iraq. It's conjecture, nothing more.

I quote from an article,

Quote:

---

But now let's list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It's essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians – which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him.

Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy – in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was – wait for it – Donald Rumsfeld . Now you might think it strange that Mr Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn't chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no.

Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz – which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam's use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget.

We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds – when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al –President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons.

And when President Bush junior promises the Iraqi people "an era of new hope" and democracy after the destruction of Saddam – as he did last night – we must forget how the Americans promised Pakistan and Afghanistan a new era of hope after the defeat of the Soviet army in 1980 – and did nothing.

---

But I'm tired of arguing about this,the decision has already been made to occupy Iraq.

Maybe it's just me, but does this remind anyone else of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution:

Quote:

---

Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964

(Department of State Bulletin, August 24, 1964)

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

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

http://greene.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/tonkin.htm

---

I really really wish there was more evidence to support the idea that the danger from Iraq has become suddenly greater, proving that it's not just election politics or Daddy's-footsteps.

I would just like to go on the record that the quote

Quote:

---

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar ."

---

Is sometimes attributed to Shakespeare, but it isn't by him.