Anti-War is not equal to pro-evil


PDA






7.62FullMetalJacket
February 11, 2004, 10:56 PM
And peace is not the absence of war :neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-War is not equal to pro-evil" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
February 11, 2004, 10:59 PM
Surrender is not peace as well.

Is tolerating evil, evil?:confused:

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 11:02 PM
It's obviously situational. In some circumstances, being anti war IS equal to being pro evil.

Very Chamberlain-esque...

MacViolinist
February 11, 2004, 11:11 PM
Sorry guys. Having problems with my internet connection. This is the post that was supposed to begin the thread. Have fun.

There is a proceedure set up in the Constitution of the U.S.A for going to war. This proceedure has been circumvented. The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are a trampling of the constitution. I think that Saddam Housein is an evil S.O.B. I think that it is not unreasonable for something to be done about it. My problem is with the "Saddam is evil. Saddam should be removed. Let's do it because it's a good thing, and to hell with the constitution." kind of thinking. Only Congress can declare war. Supporting this "war" is supporting the circumvention of the constitution. Even the SCOTUS occasionally strikes down laws which are good, in effect (i.e. the execution of the law is contrary to the intent of the Constitution, even though the result is a social good.) Anyway, my contention is that you can support either all or none of the Constitution. In other words, if you support the 2nd ammendment, you cannot logically support the "War on Terror" until Congress declares "War on Terror"

-drew

ReadyontheRight
February 11, 2004, 11:24 PM
"Historically, peace has only been bought by men of war. We may, in the future, be able to change that. It may be, as some say, that we have no choice. It may be that peace can and must be bought with some coin other than the blood of good soldiers, but there is no evidence to show that the day of jubilee has yet come." — Jerry Pournelle, preface to 'There Will be War'

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 11, 2004, 11:30 PM
Another unjust war thread :rolleyes:

In 1991 Iraq signed a surrender agreement with the US. In that agreement Iraq agreed to disarm. Bush and Klinton both worked the UN and enforced the No-Fly zone and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to contain Iraq. Bush II re-opened hostilities from a pre-existing action with cause, and was provided with a binding resolution from Congress. Although not required by the US Constitution, Bush II also tried to work through the UN.

More to the point, we are there, we prevailed, and we are cleaning up. Would you have us withdraw? DO YOU understand the consequences for withdrawal?

BowStreetRunner
February 11, 2004, 11:35 PM
MacViolinist,
you are right that the constitution says that the Congress has the right to declare war, but that hasn't happened since when???....WW2 if i am correct.....(Korea and Vietnam being undeclared "police actions" ??)
i consider myself a pretty strict constitutionalist, but the
congressional resolution (http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html) allowing the use of force in Iraq seems to fulfill what the founders wanted (ie: Congressional approval of war)
BSR

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 11, 2004, 11:39 PM
BSR,

Don't confuse with the facts, the answer is already known :uhoh:

Michigander
February 11, 2004, 11:50 PM
I agree with BSR as far as Congressional approval. How they came to the conclusion to pass the resolution is a different matter, as we are all well aware.

And believe it or not, if Bush would have come out and said, "Iraq is in violation of section X, XX, XXX, etc. of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and has been in said violation from 1991 through 2003, therefore I am ordering our troops to commence the war... etc." then I would have been in full support of this war.

Why did he say all the other things, that thus far had not panned out, instead of going with the cease-fire issue?

I don't mean get another one of those "for/against" threads going, but I'm really at a loss why he didn't argue it that way?

Thumper
February 12, 2004, 12:08 AM
And believe it or not, if Bush would have come out and said, "Iraq is in violation of section X, XX, XXX, etc. of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and has been in said violation from 1991 through 2003, therefore I am ordering our troops to commence the war... etc." then I would have been in full support of this war.

Very interesting, Michigander.

Here are the President's remarks before the UN in 2002. Please do a ctrl-f search through the page for "1991."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

He mentions the violations a number of times. Awaiting your stated support for the war...

HunterGatherer
February 12, 2004, 12:09 AM
And believe it or not, if Bush would have come out and said, "Iraq is in violation of section X, XX, XXX, etc. of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and has been in said violation from 1991 through 2003, therefore I am ordering our troops to commence the war... etc." then I would have been in full support of this war.Put me down in the "not" column since he said all of those things and more.


"Thar she blows! A whiiiite whaaale!" :rolleyes:

MacViolinist
February 12, 2004, 12:17 AM
Congress does not have the power to confer its own powers to other branches of the Ferderal Government. See Marbury v. Madison for starters.

-drew

Michigander
February 12, 2004, 12:27 AM
...Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations.
...


emphasis added.

There are a lot of references to "broken promises," and violations of "UN resolutions." However, the only reference to a "cease-fire" is in the above quote. The "cease-fire agreement" agreed to between the United States and Iraq is not mentioned. Bush was obviously trying to convince the UN using their own rhetoric to do so (of course, it did not work). When Bush made his case for war on television and radio all across the nation to the American people (not the UN), he did not make the "violation of cease-fire" argument then either.

HunterGatherer
February 12, 2004, 12:31 AM
Congress does not have the power to confer its own powers to other branches of the Ferderal Government. See Marbury v. Madison for starters.No, but they do have the power to create their own procedures. They long ago decided upon using the War Powers Act to declare war. They did this because*:

A) they are gutless wonders.

B) the frightfully stupid and painfully dull wouldn't blame Congress for any wars they start because (being frightfully stupid and painfully dull) the FS & PD aren't able to grasp subtlety.

C) both A & B plus a few others I don't have time to enumerate.


















* Answer = C

P.S. They have been doing this sort of thing since the Presidency of Jefferson. Hint: "... shores of Tripoli!" :rolleyes:

MacViolinist
February 12, 2004, 01:00 AM
HunterGatherer,
The war powers act is just a law. If it is contrary to the intent of the Constitution, then it is null and void.

Again, only congress has the power to declare war. That is the wording of the Constitution. If past Congresses have been derelict in their duties, that is no justification for the current doing the same.

Let me try to put it this way. You can support the Constitution in its entirety and without bending, translating, or modernizing; or you can let people manipulate it for their own ends. As we have seen with the RKBA, there is no middle ground.

-drew

idd
February 12, 2004, 02:20 AM
7.62FullMetalJacket wrote:
Bush and Klinton both worked the UN and enforced the No-Fly zone

Do you know that the "no-fly zone" was not authorized by the UN?

HunterGatherer
February 12, 2004, 06:10 AM
Let me try to put it this way. You can support the Constitution in its entirety and without bending, translating, or modernizing; or you can let people manipulate it for their own ends. As we have seen with the RKBA, there is no middle ground.Try to put it however you wish.


U.S. Constitution



Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.


No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.


Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.


The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.


Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof

, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.


No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.


The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.


The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.


Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.


Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.


The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.


Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.


Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.


Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.


Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.


Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.


No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.


Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.


Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.


Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.


Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Khornet
February 12, 2004, 07:41 AM
HG! Game, set, match.

ojibweindian
February 12, 2004, 07:50 AM
Again, only congress has the power to declare war. That is the wording of the Constitution. If past Congresses have been derelict in their duties, that is no justification for the current doing the same.

IIRC, the 1991 Gulf War never formally ended. There was a cessastion of hostilities because we were under truce; there was no formal ending of the war.

Back in 1992, I received a National Defense Ribbon right out of boot camp. I asked my Company Commander why we received one, and he said that, offically, we were still in a state of war with Iraq, though the fighting had stopped.

Mark Tyson
February 12, 2004, 09:07 AM
The military has fought countless undeclared wars since the earliest days of the Republic. Declaring war these days is an obselete, nearly meaningless custom. It is a relic of a time when information traveled on horseback and ship, not fiber optic cable. Israel and Saudi Arabia are officially at war yet there are no hostilities between the two countries. Meanwhile Russia says there is no war in Chechnya, merely an operation against criminals. Declaring war has been reduced to a political statement.

As for declaring war on terror, or war on terrorism, we can do no such thing. Neither of these things are tangible entities that we can combat. Perhaps war on the Taliban or Al Qaeda makes more sense. However, they are constantly changing, dissolving and reconstituting.

Let's face it: great powers are always at war, every day they exist. America will always be at war as long as she is a great power. We will live in a perpetual state of conflict with the barbarians of Islamic extremism the same way Rome was constantly at war with the barbarian tribes on her borders. America will probably be at war with a collection of these groups for our lifetimes.

With this in mind I think it makes more sense to see a Congerssional authorizations for military action as the 21st century version of a war declaration. We should amend the constitution to this effect.

Oh and to the original topic of the thread:

Being anti-war is not an evil thing.

At the same time, war is horrible, but it is not the worst thing there is. Some wars are necessary.

Sean Smith
February 12, 2004, 09:45 AM
What we have here is semantic masturbation.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the resolution authorizing the President to use force WAS a declaration of war? Try reading it... it certainly wasn't a Resolution of a Group Hug with Iraq. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, it does not order them to do it in a specific manner or stick "Declaration of War" on it in big letters.

The President, being the Exectuive, executes. A Declaration of War is a go-ahead from Congress for the President to execute a war. Hence Congress DID declare war. It was functionally identical to a declaration of war, only the title was different. Boo hoo.

Congress is authorized to make laws under the Constitution. But they do not always call it "Law to do X," because the Constitution does not tell how to word everything. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if the Congress has the power to make war, then it follows that it has the power to do things short of war. Otherwise, Congress would either approve treaties, or blow people up, but nothing in-between... which is, of course, absurd.

tiberius
February 12, 2004, 10:38 AM
Sean is of course absolutely correct. Congress did in fact declare war. They just didn't have the collective guts to actually call it that. However this could be reworded I think:Furthermore, if the Congress has the power to make war... Congress "declares" war, the president "makes" war.

cordex
February 12, 2004, 10:52 AM
Is tolerating evil, evil?
Heh.
If so, we're pretty evil, aren't we? North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, most of Africa, big chunks of South America ... why do we tolerate these evils?

Boats
February 12, 2004, 10:54 AM
Well the dang vote in Congress was called the Iraqi War Resolution. What more does anyone need?

Of course now certain mush-heads have been declaring they were "tricked" or "decieved" by the President into lending their support on the basis of "false" claims made about Iraqi WMDs. Of course it is then conveniently forgotten that right up until they were not found (yet) that even the UN, France, and other erstwhile "allies" deemed that Saddam had WMDs. The dispute in the UN was over the immediateness of the threat, not whether there was a threat at all.

However, revisionism is a favorite play of the liberal. What amazes me is that a spurrious activity that used to be applied to events of years past, has, over time, been applied to things happening mere months ago. We were in combat with Iraq on the ground in February and March of last year. The revisionism from leftist politicians who voted for the IWR was in full swing in the middle of the fighting and continues unabated.

They can only be thinking that every American is as stupid as their typical supporter. Despite the Democrats' best attempts to ruin this country, that isn't quite the case (yet).

Art Eatman
February 12, 2004, 01:28 PM
cordex, the idea is to bring about positive change or to try to seal off evil countries which won't change. And, of course, there's only so much that can be done at any time.

Great Power doings are much like a long-term chess game. A major problem for us is that we don't think in long-term, on a day to day basis.

For instance, a scenario for Iraq, long-term: We wind up with a stable country with a government favorable to our views and interests. We remove our troops from other mid-eastern countries--particularly Saudi Arabia, and base them in Iraq. We then have a power base in an area of vital interest, always remembering that oil is a national interest. But this ain't a six-month deal.

A future what-if would be a lessened vulnerability of our people to the instability of Saudi Arabia, yet we'd have the capability to project force if need be.

Personal opinion: Given the changes in the Yellow Sea area, both in economic terms and political terms, we have a lessened national interest in North Korea. It seems that NK could well wither and fall of its own accord, and at most we try to help its neighbors survive the death throes. (That's a big "I dunno", of course.)

Art

Mark Tyson
February 12, 2004, 01:38 PM
Given the changes in the Yellow Sea area, both in economic terms and political terms, we have a lessened national interest in North Korea.

I think we could reduce our presence in South Korea significantly, to the point of an almost complete withdrawl of land forces. The ROK army is tough as nails and armed with US equipment. With our air support, reconnaissance and logistical support I think that they can hold their own against the hordes of Little Kim.

MacViolinist
February 12, 2004, 03:21 PM
HunterGatherer,
The neccesary and proper clause was also used by congress to support the Assault Weapons Ban. Does that make it constitutional? I think not.

The Iraqi War Resolution instead of simply citing Article 1 cites the War Powers Act of 1973. Why? I have no idea. The problem is that the War Powers Act effectively changes the wording of the constitution by legislation rather than ammendment. The constitution now read instead of "Congress shall have the power to .....declare war" something more like this "The President shall have the power to make war so long as he shall gain, within 60 days of giving official notice, approval of Congress."
That's a pretty big change in my book. For whatever reason, Congress chose to base the legality of this war on an unconstitutional law. If they had cited only Article 1 of the Constitution and made an official declaration of war, I would have gone out to the nearest Army recruiter and signed up. The problem with this situation is that it sets a precedent that if the result can be percieved as good enough, then the proceedures of the constitution may be circumvented and/or your rights ignored. This is the pecedent all gun control legislation is based on.
Some of you say I'm being nit-picky. You're right. I'm picking at a nit that is currently being used to whittle away your rights

-drew

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 03:29 PM
Bush II re-opened hostilities from a pre-existing action with cause,

Cause, in HIS mind only. The UN who passed the original resolution which Bush claimed justified his actions categorically told him that military action at the time was not justified. Bush ignored the UN. You can not claim the UN sanctions as justifications when the body who drafted them said that the "breech" did not justify military action. That is double talk and pure BS.

It's true Bush did get a congressional amendment to "sanction" the action and he used good old hardball politics and blackmail to do it. He set it up so that anybody who went against him would be slandered as a terror lover and the demo cowards who should have stood up to him crumpled like wet cardboard. Shame on all of them. Doesn't prove there was any legal justification for a war, just that politics as usual is still going on.:barf:

HunterGatherer
February 12, 2004, 11:13 PM
The neccesary and proper clause was also used by congress to support the Assault Weapons Ban. Does that make it constitutional? I think not.Give comparing apples to apples a whirl some time.

The AWB is unconstitutional because it is not within the purview of any branch of government to violate an inalienable human right - in this case the right to keep and bear arms.

Thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

MacViolinist
February 15, 2004, 05:13 PM
Give comparing apples to apples a whirl some time.

The AWB is unconstitutional because it is not within the purview of any branch of government to violate an inalienable human right - in this case the right to keep and bear arms.

HunterGatherer,
The effects of the 2 laws are different. One is a blatant infringement of the 2nd ammendment, the other merely sets the legal precedent for that infringement. Substantively, however, the 2 laws are identical. Each is a piece of legislation passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a President.
The constitutionality of a given law is not determined by its result. If that were the case, then, as I have pointed out, the largest number of people that think of something as good at any given time would determine whether any given law is valid. This is the philosophy of majority rules combined with the ends justifies the means in the worst possible way.
You have to exaxmine the substance of a law to determine its constitutionality. In the case of the Assault Weapons Ban, Congress claimed authority under the Necessary and Proper clause to use wording that is an infringement of the 2nd ammendment. In the case of the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress used the same clause to change the wording of the constitution. Substantively, they are both apples. Not to mention unconstitutional ones.


-drew

dischord
February 15, 2004, 05:54 PM
Boats: Well the dang vote in Congress was called the Iraqi War Resolution. What more does anyone need? Indeed.

The Constitution simply says Congress has the power to declare war. It doesn't specify the format a declaration must take. Therefore, any congressional vote approving a particular military action is sufficient.

The current war -- whatever its faults -- is constitutional. Congress approved it.MacViolinist: The Iraqi War Resolution instead of simply citing Article 1 cites the War Powers Act of 1973. Why? I have no idea. Congress did not invoke the WPA as its authority to declare war -- it simply said that it intended for certain WPA items to be met (review of the action every 60 days via WPA 5(b) ). See the resolution at: http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html.

Congressional authority to declare the Iraq war came from Article I. Congress did not need to cite Article I. Citation of authorizing power typically occurs when a legislator expects a court challenge to a law. It's not cited in every bill.

fallingblock
February 16, 2004, 04:10 AM
Nor is it necessarily "anti-evil";) .

One may observe that the removal of Hussein is a good thing, and that U.S. interests are also (potentially) being well-served by the outcome.

MacViolinist may argue that the war is "illegal", in the sense that it does not adhere to what MV regards as the original intent of the Constitution.

The argument for the necessity of 'modernized' congressional war powers may in fact be merely recognising our adaptation to the geopolitical realities of our world.

I cannot see that the attempted link to the Second Amendment has validity,
as the Second Amendment enumerates a 'right' of the people, and the War Powers Act deals with procedure for congressional approval of war.

But the arguments are interesting, nonetheless.:)

MacViolinist
February 16, 2004, 01:15 PM
December 11, 1941



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

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.
emphasis added

I won't post the Iraqi War Resolution because everyone knows where to find it. The declarations of war above are exactly that. No if ands or buts. These documents are a direct order from the people of the U.S. to the President via Congress. These fit the requirements of the Constitution.

The Iraqi War Resolution is a permission slip for the President to do whatever he wants, in accordqance the provisions of the 1973 War Powers Act, without accountability for either himself or congress. That does not fit the intent of the Constitution.

FallingBlock,
The connection between illegal wars and the Second Ammendment is that if you are willing to accept the trampling of one piece of the Constitution, you should expect the rest of it to fall in short order.


-drew

fix
February 16, 2004, 01:26 PM
So are you saying that if congress had specifically stated "state of war between the United States and the Government of Iraq which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared" you would support the war in Iraq?

If that's what you are saying, then I think you are splitting hairs. Something tells me that there's more to it though.

dischord
February 16, 2004, 02:00 PM
The declarations of war above are exactly that. No if ands or buts. Yes they are. But that doesn't make the current war unconstitutional. There is nothing binding Congress to use the same format as used in 1941 because the Constitution does not specify the format of a declaration of war. Any vote to approve military action is constitutional, including the current one. These fit the requirements of the Constitution. What requirements? The Constitution places no requirements on Congress whatsoever about how it goes about declaring war. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Big Goose Egg. Not even an iota.The Iraqi War Resolution is a permission slip for the President to do whatever he wants, in accordqance the provisions of the 1973 War Powers Act, without accountability for either himself or congress. That statement is self-contradictory. The only part of the WPA that the current resolution invokes is section 5 (b), which contains the provisions for accountability -- the 60-day reviews.

In any event, as I stated above, you seem to be confusing "in accordance with" and "authorized by." Congress did not invoke the WPA as its authority to declare war – it merely said the war would proceed under the accountability provisions of the WPA. That does not fit the intent of the Constitution. That is impossible. The Constitution does not define the mechanism by which war is declared. Any format -- ANY -- is constitutional.

MacViolinist
February 16, 2004, 04:58 PM
I'll sum up my opinion again and then get off this thread since we're probably not going to agree anyway. Besides there are lots of other threads for me to gripe in:)

1. I think that the intent of the Constitution by giving Congress the power to declare war but making the Preisident the Commander in Chief is to keep either branch from being able to do whatever they want with military force.

2. I think that the War Powers Act of 1973 is a way to get around this system of checks and balances and is therefore unconstitutional. Specifically, as I said earlier, it changes the wording of the Constitution via legislation rather than ammendment.

3. The Iraqi War Resolution states in Sec. 3 that this war will be conducted in the manner outlined in the War Powers Act.

4. It is my opinion that when you support a war that is to be conducted in the manner outlined by an unconstitutional law, you are supporting a breach of the Constitution.

I will not support any breach of the Constitution, no matter how small, no matter how desirable the outcome might be.

I would support this war if it were conducted in a manner that I think is consistent with the intent of the Constitution.

-drew

dischord
February 16, 2004, 06:41 PM
3. The Iraqi War Resolution states in Sec. 3 that this war will be conducted in the manner outlined in the War Powers Act No it doesn't. Section 3 simply requires the 60-day reviews of the war under 5(b) of the War Powers Act.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, then -- at best -- you can argue that the president can ignore Section 3 of the resolution ... that he can engage in the war indefinitely without congressional review every 60 days.

The 60-day reviews might be unconstitutional, but the war itself remains constitutional.

HunterGatherer
February 16, 2004, 06:41 PM
I think that the War Powers Act of 1973 is a way to get around this system of checks and balances and is therefore unconstitutional. Specifically, as I said earlier, it changes the wording of the Constitution via legislation rather than ammendment.As early as 1801 the congress of the United States authorized President Jefferson to use the United States Naval forces to put a stop to piracy in the Mediterranean sea and off the coast of North Africa. The Barbary Wars were immortalized within the Marine Corps Hymn "... to the shores of Tripoli" as a way to acknowledge some of the first battles that our nation's Marine Corp engaged in to defend our ships, and our honor against the mongrel hordes of North Africa.

Perhaps you believe that in just a few short years the founders of the country somehow forgot what they meant when they wrote "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

There is nothing wrong with your believing that. Believe whatever you want. Just show us the specific wording within the Constitution that outlines what procedure (other than the one highlighted above) that the Congress must use to have, as you say, "constitutionally" declared war.

fallingblock
February 17, 2004, 01:42 AM
"The connection between illegal wars and the Second Ammendment is that if you are willing to accept the trampling of one piece of the Constitution, you should expect the rest of it to fall in short order."
************************************************************

It seems that it is the opinion of MacViolinist that the Constitution is being 'trampled'.

I, and apparently others here, do not share that opinion.

Where is the evidence of the Constitution being 'trampled' here?:confused:

Michigander
March 15, 2004, 08:05 PM
So are you saying that if congress had specifically stated "state of war between the United States and the Government of Iraq which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared" you would support the war in Iraq?

Actually, the wording should be, "...state of war between the United States and the Government of Iraq because of the probable threat of possible weapons of mass destruction which Iraq might possibly have or may some day have which may or may not represent an immediate or not so immediate threat to the United States Government or the People of the United States or the Corporations of the United States or, at the very least, the People of Iraq who deserve a better Government, although not Republic, but a Democracy, and without a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed."

Point: The skirmish in Iraq was hardly "thrust upon the United States."

bountyhunter
March 15, 2004, 08:15 PM
Bush II re-opened hostilities from a pre-existing action with cause,

That is where your train of logic jumped the track and went over the cliff. The UN (who passed the original resolution used by Bush as an excuse for war) stated unequivocally that any breeches (if they existed) did NOT justify the use of military force and that they would not sanction such actions. So, using their resolution for political cover is total BS. The other point is, as you say:

"with cause"

What cause? Iraq agreed to disarme and destroy banned weapons. Bush accused them of not doing so, and they denied it. We invaded and forund out that there were, in fact, no banned weapons.... exactly as Hussein had claimed.

What cause? If being an a-hole or killing people you don't like is cause for invasion, we would have to invade most of our "allies".

bountyhunter
March 15, 2004, 08:17 PM
1. I think that the intent of the Constitution by giving Congress the power to declare war but making the Preisident the Commander in Chief is to keep either branch from being able to do whatever they want with military force.

As the kids today would say.......


DUUUUHHHHHHHHHH!

A "president" with the power to wage war at his whim is not a president, he is a KING.

Mark Tyson
March 15, 2004, 08:19 PM
If being an a-hole or killing people you don't like is cause for invasion, we would have to invade most of our "allies".

It's not just that we didn't like him - Saddam was a ruthless and aggressive tyrant. We can't get them all, but we did get Saddam, and he was one of the worst. Whatever criticisms I've leveld at Mr Bush in the past, I do agree that this was the right thing to do.

HBK
March 15, 2004, 08:59 PM
When the war is waged against evil, the anti-war movement becomes pro-evil. Pretty simple really... :rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
March 15, 2004, 09:23 PM
We should simply have obliterated Baghdad at the outset, then accepted unconditional surrenders from Iraq and the rest of the Islamic terrorist states.

Land wars in Asia are a bad idea.

jfh
March 15, 2004, 09:54 PM
this thread is semantic masterbation, particularly when it is being conducted in a non-judicial forum, and particularly when The Powers That Be are not running it around the flagpole--even the DemoRat bush-haters haven't been firing away at it recently.

I have my opinions on this as well, and I also have..... These three factors and $2.00 will buy a cup of coffee these days--less coins are needed at the Wall Drug.

HBK
March 16, 2004, 12:22 AM
I like that idea, Standing Wolf.

GoRon
March 16, 2004, 01:36 AM
"Anti-War is not equal to pro-evil" OR

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

We fight evil where we can. There is no one size fits all answer as to how we accomplish this.

Invading Iraq, taking out a crual dictator who was implicated in an assasination attempt against a former President of the US and supported terrorism (against our ally Isreal) is one method of fighting evil.

Bringing all the nations around N Korea to the table to pressure them is another way to fight evil.

Encouraging democratic and free market reforms in China is another way of fighting the scourge totalitarian evil.

Removing the Taliban and chasing Bin Laden tirelessly until we capture or kill him is another.

ojibweindian
March 16, 2004, 09:17 AM
I'm sure I've mentioned this somewhere before, but we have in a state of war with Iraq since 1991. There was no official ending of the hostilities at that time, only a cease fire agreement. I think that technically, we're still at war with N. Korea.

In all truth, Bush never had to go to the Congress for a formal declaration of war with Iraq.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-War is not equal to pro-evil" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!