"unconstitutional blank check" - Iraq war resolution

[German-Lefty]

When the Senate passed the Iraq war resolution, many of us were irked by democrats(including Kerry) enabling Bush to decide if and when we'd go to war.

Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia called it a "unconstitutional blank check" "because it shifts the power to declare war from the Congress, where it is vested in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, to the president."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/dems-o11.shtml
That was pretty much my objection too.

Sure it would have been ok for congress to pass a resolution threating to declare war, if Iraq didn't meet certain conditions; but the final decision should lie with Congress.

It takes an emperor to run an empire. Ceaser makes back room deals with countries and can back them up with war. There has in opinion been a shift toward empire in the US. Presidents have bombed countries and sent special forces into areas without asking congress.

The reason I'm posting this now is I'm trying to figure out why an otherwise good looking candidate(Kerry) gave up his constitutional responsibility as a member of congress to Bush. He has tried to explain it on his website.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1210b.html

He admits "I was wrong to trust him. I'm sorry I did." He says he trusted Bush to go to the UN and only if necessary go to war.
In my opinion he should not have had to trust Bush to decide if war was necessary, this was his job.

(I have no major ties to any of the candidates)

[mhr]

1. Both Edwards And Kerry Are Culpable For Abdicating Their Duties

This is the reason that many will not be able to vote for either man.

Seems that many in the democratic party want four more years of Bush - directly or indirectly.

[Bucky]

2. sigh

I'm settled with Kerry's explanation that his vote was an attempt by the Senate to give the president the political tools to force concessions from Iraq. Had it been Clinton or Gore I would expect the Republican senators to do the same. Saying either candidate--Kerry or Edwards--would give us four more years of Bush is neither accurate nor decent.

[truthspeaker]

8. I'll be able to vote for them, I'll just have to hold my nose when I do it

[Malva Zebrina]

3. Many could not figure it out

it is my opinion they were all looking out for their own political necks. I don't think they did it for monetary gain, although there was some rumbling about Feinstein. Figured,if there were no weapons, they could always say they were lied to by either Bush or the CIA, or someone and if there were, well then they were indeed wise to vote for war. They may also have intuited that Bush might pull something -- more terror alerts, etc. Or they may just have read the American people correctly, although millions took to the streets, wrote begging letters etc, we saw no outrage--in fact we saw people believeing it was just fine to invade the country, take it's stuff, kill thousands of people becasuse their revenge mode for 9-11 was being continually revved up higherand higher by Bush..to this day we see no outrage as the facts come in about Bush's lies--where is it?

Kerry is probably going to be nominated. Voted for the slaughter under the hand of a proven liar,Edwards right up thjere too--voted for the slaughter. Kucinich--another man up there with Byrd who calls a spade a spade and has a plan to keep calling a spade a spade.
Byrd could afford to be courageous, and he was and is a hero, consistently facing the truth of everything that Bush has done to wreck the country.

[prodigal_green]

4. I agree

Actually, this has nothing to do with any of the individual candidates or parties. I believe that what Congress did was entirely unconstitutional. It is not up to any one sitting legislature to decide to ignore its constitutional responsibilities. I don't care how much one trusts the president, it is not his option, nor his right or responsibility to declare war.

It is outrageous enough when a president grabs power, but when one of the three EQUAL branches of government simply hands it over--well, I haven't got the words.

[JNelson6563]

5. Senator Levin tried to slow this train down

He offered an amendment that woulda made the boy king come back for permission befor kicking off his grand adventure. It was voted down. I believe our two "front-runners" even voted against it.

Rove would not have approved such an amendment therefore....

Julie

[buckeye1]

6. Lets get real.

We now know that the first agenda was to invade Iraq. O'neil has the book out. In Sept. 2002 Bush said that existing law would let him go to war. And there is the war powers act. The IWR vote was in the bag without Democrats. John Kerry's vote on the IWR is just as irrelevant as the Bob Byrd's vote on partial birth abortion.

And of course I never care for the whiners at WSWS. If these losers could ever get elected,I might listen to the jive.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. The Iraq "war" is literally an unconstitutional "blank check". Allocation

of funds for its maintenance have not been included in the federal budget for next year, thus the deficit is even LARGER than projected by the Administration. Same with omission of funds for the "war" in Afganistan. Smoke-and-mirrors budget policy.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040202/afp/040202225705eco.html

[sangha]

9. You are a little bit too late

We invaded Afghanistan without a declaration of war, also. Even though that invasion may seem more justified to many, that doesn't change the fact that Congress "enabled" Bush* by using the process it used to enable Bush* to invade Iraq. And it goes further back than that.

There have been over 100 armed invasion of other countries and the vast majority were not authorized by a declaration of war, or an invitation from the invaded nation. Viet Nam was one. Korea another. Panama, Grenada, etc.

[indepat]

10. Unfortunately our only choice is to ferret out the lesser of evils

[Moderator]

11. Locking--GD rules

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator