Has * even read the War Powers Act ...

[11 Bravo]

or has Ashcroft finished up on the Constitution and is now using the Act with which to wipe his fat ass? In the past few days I've heard Bush, Condi, Cheney, McClellan, et al cranking up the old spin that Bush never said Saddam posed an "imminent" threat. Yet Public Law 93-148,Joint resolution 542, Section 3 unequivocally states that US armed forces shall be introduced only into existing hostilities or "into situation where IMMINENT involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated". THE LAW SAYS IT FOR HIM!! And it does so explicitly, not implicily. I'd like to see JFK smack him upside the head with that.

[leftofthedial]

1. I assume that is a rhetorical question

[Nicholas_J]

3. Have you read the "War Powers Resolution"

It has no binding effect on the presidents ability to move and order troops to take military action
It only cites that the president must "consult" with congress regarding the use of military force, and so far legal representatives of both congress and the executive branch of every president since the act was written have been meeting in order to simply agree on what the word "consult"means. No president has agreed that the act is constitutional, and the Supreme Court has refused to rule on the act. One president alone has violated the act more often than all other presidebts put togetther since the act was passed. Unfortunately that president was Bill CLinton, who violated the act 17 times during his presidency, by comitting troops to conflicst in Africa, Haiti and the Balkans. all against the will of congress.

The War Powers Resolutions has an entire section with suggestions on how they would like a president to act if he decides to use force without the approval of congress, the wording of which has been included in every congressional vote used to authorize use of force since the resolution was passed. That is to inform congress of the sitution every 60 days. And that the president must send his reasons for sending troops into war within 48 hours of doing so.

The general impression of legal experts is that the War Powers resolution would likely be found unonstitutional if the Supreme Ct would rule on it. They have sent a hint however. THey say they will not rule on it as the court says that they do not have the power to rule on it under the constitution, because the constitution does not give one branch the power to take away a constitutionally granted power to another branch. Hint that congress does not have the power to limit the presidents authority over the military.


There has been much argument about what the War Powers of congress actually constitute, and this was argued in favor of a the executive branch early on. The war powers of congress have clearly been defined as the act declaration of war, a legal state between two nation, and not the use of military force which can be used withou formal declaration of war. Congress was also determined in the arguments of the f0unding fathers to hold the purse strings for the military.

But the power to commit troops to the battlefield has firmly been defined as falling in the hands of the president, and constitutionally, congress cannot prohibit that.

[leftofthedial]

4. bush doesn't read newspapers

and the entire briefing on counter terrorism must be reduced to three short paragrahs for him.

of course he hasn't read the War Powers Act.

[Javaman]

5. he only reads, "my pet goat"...

[shockingelk]

2. That's that the Iraq resolution was about ...

Congress gave him authority to act as he saw fit.

I'm not sure, it seems like you're suggesting a law was broken?