Da speech...

[Sandman]

Don't confuse appropriation with authorization. WRT defense budget, Bush is the last word.

[Nash]

(edit d'oh!) Ripsnort (not Sandman ), I think Toad's angle is more about the *political* nuances of any congressional declaration... and not so much worried about where the cash is gonna come from.

[Toad]

Nash, in many threads I 've said I don't support the War Powers Act.

I think it just allows Congress to hide from their responsibility and accountability.

I'm probably more aware of its use than you are. Didn't support the way Congress ducked responsibility on VietNam. Wasn't around for Korea. Have not like its use in any of the action since.

If we're going to war... do your job and say so. Otherwise we're not going. Pretty simple to me.

Only in the "suprise attack" mode does the War Powers Act make any sense to me.

So, yeah, I expect them to do it right for the first time in 60 years. Ya gotta start somewhere.

Here's where you're lost in the woods on the "your guy/my guy" stuff. I voted for him. Would/will most likely vote for him again if the choice is again Gore or Bush. But that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says, does or tries to do.

I don't feel guilty about voting for him. He was the best choice for me at the time and I have no regrets given the choices I had. I'd vote for him again if we had a "vote of confidence".  I've said that in a few posts in this thread already, I think.

But your use of "your guy" is just stinkbait and you know it. It adds nothing substantive to the discussion. I actually expect a bit better from you. As I said, I think you're losing your edge.

Lastly, if you do some research, you'll find I've mentioned/supported Congress doing it's job rather than ducking behind the War Powers Act in various threads that predate this crisis and indeed predate 9/11.

Just like when you accused me of suddenly backing away from Bush and using the Supreme Court issue as a red herring. But there it was in the archives, eh? 4  months BEFORE the election.

[Nash]

Has it occured to you that maybe the Congress doesn't WANT to declare war? And that it might be something other than simply wanting to duck their responsibility? That granting Bush the use of force under the war measures act makes Bush accountable to the congress in both his reporting, duration and in some sense his handling of the deployment? You think they're dropping the ball, and I think they're trying to hold on to it.

Has it occured to you that this ('73) war measures act was created in *response* to the unchecked bs that led up to the Vietnam "war"?

It just makes sense to me... it doesn't to you, and I'm ok with that.

By the way, I was fully aware of your position on Bush re the Supreme court. I read if not was involved in those threads. It just struck me as hedging your bets, in a way... and well done... you finally got to play that card. To me it's peculiar to elect a president solely on his ability to pick folks for the bench. There are other things at stake. War is one example. Again, we can disagree.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Don't confuse appropriation with authorization. WRT defense budget, Bush is the last word.

You must have spark to have fire.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Nash
Has it occured to you that maybe the Congress doesn't WANT to declare war? And that it might be something other than simply wanting to duck their responsibility? That granting Bush the use of force under the war measures act makes Bush accountable to the congress in both his reporting, duration and in some sense his handling of the deployment? You think they're dropping the ball, and I think they're trying to hold on to it.

Has it occured to you that this ('73) war measures act was created in *response* to the unchecked bs that led up to the Vietnam "war"?

It just makes sense to me... it doesn't to you, and I'm ok with that.

By the way, I was fully aware of your position on Bush re the Supreme court. I read if not was involved in those threads. It just struck me as hedging your bets, in a way... and well done... you finally got to play that card. To me it's peculiar to elect a president solely on his ability to pick folks for the bench. There are other things at stake. War is one example. Again, we can disagree.

Agree Nash, and don't forget, DEMOCRATS controlled the congress for 40 years up until 1994

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Has it occured to you that maybe the Congress doesn't WANT to declare war?

Yes.
 

Originally posted by Nash
And that it might be something other than simply wanting to duck their responsibility?

[/b]

I don't think that's it. YOur implication is that once war is declared the Congress has no input into the prosecution. I definitely disagree.

 

Originally posted by Nash
Has it occured to you that this ('73) war measures act was created in *response* to the unchecked bs that led up to the Vietnam "war"?

[/b]

IMO, it stems from the foul-up that was the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. I'm sure you're aware of who/what made that one happen; and the inevitalbe result of sending a nation to war without the declaration of war. It tore our society apart.
 

Originally posted by Nash
By the way, I was fully aware of your position on Bush re the Supreme court.

[/b]

Sure didn't appear like that way in that thread. But I'm not going to go dig it up and get in a quote war.

Originally posted by Nash
To me it's peculiar to elect a president solely on his ability to pick folks for the bench. There are other things at stake. War is one example. Again, we can disagree.

Well, I once again refer you to the original thread. It's entitled Second Amendment.

In brief: The President proposes, The Congress disposes. The Supreme Court RULES.

Who really has the power?

Disagree if you like.

[Nash]

You're correct that I was refering to Tonkin. The remedy was not the mandating of a declaration of war. The remedy was the creation of the War Powers Act, which the Congress is employing.

So how much power (or "ruling" as it were) is the Supreme Court bringing to bear in all this, Toad?

[Toad]

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was August 7, 1964 .

"..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."

THAT was where we got away from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, IMO. That's the point. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. We didn't declare war in Viet Nam. You can view it any way you choose, but from my POV it was an incredible error.

We should have either been IN or OUT.

As it was we were neither.......we were in the preliminary "War Powers zone".  And it tore the country apart eventually.

Had Congress done its Constitutional job right then we wouldn't have needed the WPA. We'd have been IN or OUT.

So, then we get the War Powers Act of 1973. "...the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States..."

SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
 
And through the years it's been bent and twisted enough to allow some pretty involved military operations.

Were any declared wars? Is Iraq going to be a declared war? Nope.

Were any "national emergencies created by an attack upon the US"? Perhaps a few but certainly not all.

Specific statutory authorization? Well, this Iraq one is now. But tell me this: We're supposedly going to Iraq to replace the government of a sovereign nation. Isn't that "war"? Wouldn't it best be served by a declaration of same? What's with this "statutory authorization" stuff?

So, Nash, you're going to be OK with it if the US Congress just starts issuing "statutory authorization" to start whacking any country we don't like?

I think the framers were pretty smart guys. I think when we stray, we get all fouled up. The framers didn't put in no "steenkin' statutory authorization". It was either IN or OUT. The War Powers Act is straying big time, IMO.

You like it. I definitely do not.

The Supremes? Yes, they're always involved at some point.

"In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. President George H.W. Bush responded by sending American troops, without a Congressional declaration of war. As the President talked of escalating the battle, Congressman Ron Dellums, along with several colleagues, filed a lawsuit to enjoin the president from widening the war without a declaration of war by Congress.

But the judge that heard Dellums v. Bush, Judge Harold Greene of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, refused to become involved. He followed the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Goldwater v. Carter -- in which the Senator sued the President for breaking a treaty with Taiwan, and the Court held that the case was not "ripe" for review, meaning that the suit has been brought at the wrong time."

Looks like the Supremes were ultimately responsible for Dellums suit not being heard over Desert Storm to me.


"Campbell had previously forced votes in the House of Representatives under the War Powers Resolution denying Clinton authority to continue the air strikes. When the 60-day period under the War Powers Resolution expired, and the air strikes continued, he went to court.

Both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the case. They found that the members of Congress had no standing, basically for the same reason stated in Dellums -- no interbranch impasse had been reached. Congressman Campbell then sought U.S. Supreme Court review, but was turned down."

Hmm... looks like the Supremes again had the final say over "War Powers" in a way.

(and before you start, note that they haven't ruled on the War Powers Act itself. Take that for what you will.)

Still think they're not the most important?

Lets see if any of the politicians have the brass to challenge this one. My bet is they won't. If they do, I suspect the Court won't hear it.

[Nash]

Heh, wow. OK first this SC business:

You are trying to tell me that the Supreme Court is... hang on, here's what you said:

"The Supremes? Yes, they're always involved at some point."

Then you attempt to make that case by saying "Looks like the Supremes were ultimately responsible for Dellums suit not being heard over Desert Storm to me." Say what?

Sounds to me like "the Supremes were ultimately responsible" for, well, not being responsible.

I mean heck, that dude in your example, Dellums, tried to get the Supremes to do *exactly* the thing you're wanting... force a declaration of war... and they wouldn't even hear his argument! Maybe (in their words) his case wasn't "ripe" for review, but your use of this example sure is!

Alluhvasudden this other guy appears. Cambell? His case against Clinton for the same thing was also rejected. The guy previous to Dullums was also rejected.

These are people who wanted to force a declaration of war, this thing that you want....and these other guys, the Supreme Court, the folks who apparently "RULE"... decided not to rule.

Then you summarize by saying "Hmm... looks like the Supremes again had the final say over "War Powers" in a way." You may take that as final say, but I couldn't hear it.... the so-called "final say" was masked out by the sound of a pin dropping. If there is *anything* to take away from all of this, it is that the Supreme Court deems the War Powers Act adequate. Or to paraphrase: "We'd rather not get involved".

I wanna go back to that section of the War Powers Act (WPA here on out) that you keep quoting and bolding. My problem is that I can't understand what the hell that section is trying to say:

"exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war". I don't get that at all (and the key might be found in the actual meaning of "pursuant"). At a glance, it's saying "You need a formal declaration of war in order to introduce the far more limiting scope inherent in the granting of the WPA". Why in the world would anyone seek an additional WPA on top of a declaration of war? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and we're reading this wrong I think Toad. And it's also at odds with the actual *use* of the WPA; since its inception, nobody has required a declaration of war in order to enact the WPA. Again it makes zero sense to do so.

To answer your following questions, yes, going in and replacing the governments of sovereign nations is war. Should it be bolstered by an *act of war*? Not necessarily... read on.

"So, Nash, you're going to be OK with it if the US Congress just starts issuing "statutory authorization" to start whacking any country we don't like?

No, I'm certainly not. And I'm confident that the Congress would take issue with the idea of that as well. There is however *one* guy that would have no problem with that... And he's got no problem spelling that fact out. In fact he *did* spell that out in an alarming policy shift... and it's a major cause for concern.

That's why I like the WPA. It in effect says "Ok, there's something to this... do what you deem necessary but you better report back to us within 60 days and if we don't like what we hear, we're yankin' the plug." A sweeping declaration of war is a whole 'nuther ball of wax, and frankly the thought of Bush having that type of backing is frightening.

Look, it was plainly evident that Bush was prepared to circumvent even the limited WPA if need be. You want this guy to get the backing implicit in a declaration of war? Against a "country you don't like" but happens to pose no immediate threat? No, I don't want to see him get that. In fact, if he doesn't get UN backing yet goes in under the US WPA it's *still* utter roadkill but at least I'll know that the Congress still has some say in it.

Yeah... Let's have the Congress make a formal Declaration of War... on (that's it!) terrorism. The world would be knee deep in it for a good long time.

[Toad]

1. I don't agree with every Supreme Court decision handed down. Suprised?

I also am sometimes disappointed at the cases they choose not to hear.

Just part of our government, though. That's how it works. I doubt anyone likes everything in any government all the time, don't you?

Still doesn't change the fact that the SC is the final arbiter. IN fact, it underscores that. Doesn't change the fact, IMO, that they are far more important than the Congress or the President. Which, once again, explains my choice of Bush over Gore.

And it doesn't change the fact that the WPA is unnecessary and ill-advised. IMO.

2.

My problem is that I can't understand what the hell that section is trying to say:

Here, let me help (italics are the way I view what they are saying:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities...

< The President's Constitutional powers to "send in the troops"

...are exercised only pursuant to

< can only be used when>

(1) a declaration of war,

<Congress issues a declaration of war>

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

<Congress gives him specific statutory authorization to "send in the troops" or>

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

< the US itself or its territories or possessions, or its armed forces is/are attacked>


The WPA just says a declaration of war allows the President to use his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

So does Congressional "statutory authorization".

So does an attack upon the US.

That's all.

One and Three are pretty obvious. But this "statutory authorization" thing... when is a war not a war?

Congress just authorized Bush to use US forces against Iraq; to destroy his WMD and remove/replace Hussein.

That isn't war? What is it to you Nash, if it isn't war?

If it is war, why isn't it a declared war?

This just leads us down the same road as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It's not a REAL war, right? It's some kind of fake war, some "statutory authorization".

I don't think point two is necessary. If you're authorizing the President to remove the leader of a sovereign nation, that's war. So call it like it is. And put the entire nation behind the effort. This "statutory authorization" is merely a cover for the politicians in DC in case things go wrong.

I don't think the WPA limits the President's Constitutional Powers, under a declaration of war, as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities. It merely states this is a legitimate use.

The WPA restrictions kick in

"Sec. 4. (a)

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--"

when there's NO declaration of war. That was the whole point of the WPA if you recall. To limit the President's ability to use troops in the absence of a declaration of war.

You've agreed the Iraq situation is going to be a war. Am I to understand that you prefer it to be undeclared? Sorry, I can't agree with that.

BTW, I don't think it's 60 days, either, unless they amended the original WPA. I didn't check. But in the original, it's 6 months.

"Sec. 4. (c)

Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) <absence of a declaration of war> of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

Look, it was plainly evident that Bush was prepared to circumvent even the limited WPA if need be.

I don't think he could have done that. Even now.

You want this guy to get the backing implicit in a declaration of war?

Well, if there's a legitimate reason, a cause for "just war", yes, I want him to have the backing implicit in a declaration of war.

It's Congress' job to determine if there is cause for war and then declare it.

Seems we sort of sidestepped that whole little thing didn't we? I'm not sure if you can see it, but that's why I don't like "statutory authorization". Congress really didn't debate to see if there was cause for just war, did they?

Against a "country you don't like" but happens to pose no immediate threat?

So you agree there's no cause for just war right now? Fine. Seems you'd be thinking "no war unless Congress can justify it". As it is now, we're getting a war, an undeclared war and Congress didn't even TRY to justify it. This is better?

Congress has a lot of say under a declaration of war. You seem to just ignore that. They have as much or MORE than they do under a "statutory authorization". Because bottom line is they provide the money for the fight in both cases.

That's how they exert control in both declared wars and undeclared "statutorily authorized non-wars".

You're getting a war either way but I'm sure you realize that. The idea that Congress somehow has MORE control using "statutory authorization" is incorrect, IMO.

All they've done is provide themselves the ability to wash their hands of responsiblity if it goes wrong. Which is why politicians pass things like the WPA.

I'll just take it the way the framers wrote it, thanks.

[Toad]

Oh, BTW..

I'm outta here.

Literally.

I'm off now to invade Saskatchewan with 3 labs, 2 shotguns and a son.

Don't worry, it's been "statutorily authorized" by my wife.

And we want nothing but legal limits of wild game. We're not going to try to replace your government or anything.

Ta-ta.

Back in a month or so.

[Nash]

Lol

Have fun. I think we agree on the broader aspects but are splitting hairs on the finer points. Or visa versa. Which is why it's fun to debate with you... I learn.

See ya inna month.