# Should Congress Have Issued An Official Declaration of War?



## Paulie (Apr 13, 2008)

Self explanatory.

Please explain why or why not.


----------



## Annie (Apr 13, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Self explanatory.
> 
> Please explain why or why not.



Yes, it was their duty via the Constitution, problem is this usurpation goes back a long ways. Then again, GW should have asked for one, just like FDR did.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 13, 2008)

Yes Congress should have declared war.  It was completely irresponsible behavior for Congress to pass its authority off to the President.  It removed one of the checks and balances of power by doing so.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military.  He is not the King of the US.  Bush has been one of the worst in recent times at grabbing and consolidating power within the Executive Branch.  At the same time, Congress has let him do it.  The current Democrat-controlled Congress, regardless their boasts, has done little if anything to reverse it.

I don't remember the last time in my lifetime Congress was worth a shit, regardless which party is in control.  I sure as Hell don't recall the last time they actually represented the people of the United States.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 13, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Yes Congress should have declared war.  It was completely irresponsible behavior for Congress to pass its authority off to the President.  It removed one of the checks and balances of power by doing so.
> 
> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military.  He is not the King of the US.  Bush has been one of the worst in recent times at grabbing and consolidating power within the Executive Branch.  At the same time, Congress has let him do it.  The current Democrat-controlled Congress, regardless their boasts, has done little if anything to reverse it.
> 
> I don't remember the last time in my lifetime Congress was worth a shit, regardless which party is in control.  I sure as Hell don't recall the last time they actually represented the people of the United States.



Okay.  At first, I didnt grasp the meaning of the question. 

On the one hand, Congress should not declare war in this case because I dont see that war was warranted. On the other hand, if we are debating proper procedure, then, if congressmen wanted to have us really go to war, then the answer is: yes.

At first, I thought that this was a question about whether or not we should have gone to war.  If that is the case, congress should not have authorized the president.  Nor should it have declared war.    Now I see the point.  Yes, it was irresponsible for congress to pass the buck as it did.  If there is a question about going to war, congress should either declare war or not declare war  not pass off the decision to the president.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 13, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  At first, I didn&#8217;t grasp the meaning of the question.
> 
> On the one hand, Congress should not declare war in this case because I don&#8217;t see that war was warranted. On the other hand, if we are debating proper procedure, then, if congressmen wanted to have us really go to war, then the answer is: yes.
> 
> At first, I thought that this was a question about whether or not we should have gone to war.  If that is the case, congress should not have authorized the president.  Nor should it have declared war.    Now I see the point.  Yes, it was irresponsible for congress to &#8220;pass the buck&#8221; as it did.  If there is a question about going to war, congress should either declare war or not declare war &#8211; not pass off the decision to the president.



Come on dude, it really wasn't a tough question.  We're not debating whether or not the war should have happened here.  The war happened.  All I'm asking is, especially  since congress was overwhelmingly in support of it, should they have issued an official declaration.

Are you the "no" vote?


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 13, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Are you the "no" vote?



Yes, but I want to change my vote. Yes yes yes yes yes - a thousand times yes


----------



## Gunny (Apr 13, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Yes, but I want to change my vote. Yes yes yes yes yes - a thousand times yes



Heh ... this isn't a Democrat primary so you can only vote once. 

However, you should feel all better now.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 13, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Heh ... this isn't a Democrat primary so you can only vote once.
> 
> However, you should feel all better now.



(LOL) Okay, but on the flip-side, thanks for understanding this voters intent and letting his vote count.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 13, 2008)

When Congress issued the resolution giving President Bush the power to use any and all means necessary to enforce the UN resolutions, they in effect, declared President Bush could declare war when he felt it was needed.  So this whole poll is a moot point.  Congress did pass a resolution authorizing the war and it passed with an overwhelming majority.  And it has not been repealed by anyone in Congress because no one wants to go on record as being against a total victory.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 13, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Self explanatory.
> 
> Please explain why or why not.



Against who, Saddam or terrorism?


----------



## Annie (Apr 13, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> When Congress issued the resolution giving President Bush the power to use any and all means necessary to enforce the UN resolutions, they in effect, declared President Bush could declare war when he felt it was needed.  So this whole poll is a moot point.  Congress did pass a resolution authorizing the war and it passed with an overwhelming majority.  And it has not been repealed by anyone in Congress because no one wants to go on record as being against a total victory.



Obviously, Congress ceded their power, the executive picked it up, like for the past 50 years. Still wrong and there may come a price in time.


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 13, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> When Congress issued the resolution giving President Bush the power to use any and all means necessary to enforce the UN resolutions, they in effect, declared President Bush could declare war when he felt it was needed.  So this whole poll is a moot point.  Congress did pass a resolution authorizing the war and it passed with an overwhelming majority.  And it has not been repealed by anyone in Congress because no one wants to go on record as being against a total victory.



Congress can't say that the president can declare war whenever its needed.   The Constitution specifically says only Congress can declare war and to change that they need to change the Constitution, not just wish it away.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 13, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Congress can't say that the president can declare war whenever its needed.   The Constitution specifically says only Congress can declare war and to change that they need to change the Constitution, not just wish it away.



Interpret it for yourself:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107


----------



## Paulie (Apr 13, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Against who, Saddam or terrorism?



I thought it being in the "Iraq" forum was enough indication.  I'm talking about the Iraq War.

Terrorism is a tactic, or an idea if you will.  You can't declare war on an idea.  That makes no sense.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 13, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> When Congress issued the resolution giving President Bush the power to use any and all means necessary to enforce the UN resolutions, they in effect, declared President Bush could declare war when he felt it was needed.  So this whole poll is a moot point.  Congress did pass a resolution authorizing the war and it passed with an overwhelming majority.  And it has not been repealed by anyone in Congress because no one wants to go on record as being against a total victory.



I don't think Congress can legally cede the authority to declare war in the name of the United States, and it would seem foolish to me for COngress to do so.  The authority and responsibilities of each branch of government are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Congress authorized Bush to use whatever force necessary.  That is not an official and legal declaration of war, and it is basically IMO shirking their responsibility to carry out the duties of their appointed officees.


----------



## p kirkes (Apr 13, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Terrorism is a tactic, or an idea if you will.  You can't declare war on an idea.  That makes no sense.



But we can declare war on an object - Drugs.  And create a commanding Czar to carry out that war in foreign countries and also domesticly.  Wonder how that war is coming along?  Have we won yet? Can we have an idea when it might be finished or is it a never ending operation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Congress can't say that the president can declare war whenever its needed.   The Constitution specifically says only Congress can declare war and to change that they need to change the Constitution, not just wish it away.



Ya. You mean like how the Congress has created law after law and entity after entity since the 30's , completely against the Constitution? Congress did its duty it AUTHORIZED the President to conduct a war.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 14, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya. You mean like how the Congress has created law after law and entity after entity since the 30's , completely against the Constitution? Congress did its duty it AUTHORIZED the President to conduct a war.



RGS,

That isn't the question.  The question is should Congress have made an official Declaration of War?  Not should Congress have authorized the President to use whatever means necessary.

That "authroization" had allowed a few Congresscritters to backpeddle and claim they didn't mean that Bush necessarily "had to" use force."  

And correct me if I am wrong ... I really don't recall ... was not that authorization given in regard to pursuing the Taliban in Afhganistan?  Or was it a separate authorization for Iraq?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 14, 2008)

Nevermind.  I found it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Still, Congress should not give up it's power to the Executive Branch.  It clearly did so.  If we are going to conduct a war -- the President should go to Congress and ask for a Declaration of War, not a blanket, open-ended statement, and Congress should either declare war or say no.  

Circumventing the Constitution has become SOP in DC, and it needs to stop.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 14, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> RGS,
> 
> That isn't the question.  The question is should Congress have made an official Declaration of War?  Not should Congress have authorized the President to use whatever means necessary.
> 
> ...



He got a separate authorization for both "invasions" as the Constitution requires. Congress can back pedal all they want, the Vote on the matter is PUBLIC knowledge. the Congress has voted EVERY year to continue the war, to include the last 2 years under Democratic control. There is no room for the Congress or member of it to claim any thing other than Congress supports the war.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> RGS,
> 
> That isn't the question.  The question is should Congress have made an official Declaration of War?  Not should Congress have authorized the President to use whatever means necessary.
> 
> ...





> Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 14, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Nevermind.  I found it.
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
> 
> ...



It was not circumvented. Congress acted and ALLOWED the war. That is all that is required.

But lets talk about all the real circumventions that Larkinn does not care one whit about?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 14, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It was not circumvented. Congress acted and ALLOWED the war. That is all that is required.
> 
> But lets talk about all the real circumventions that Larkinn does not care one whit about?



Let's don't derail this thread.  If you want to discuss the division of powers in general and who is and is not circumventing what, I suggest a new thread.  It isn't like Larkinn is bashful and has to have his arm twisted to play. 

As it pertains to this specific instance, I don't like "playing at war," nor do I like elected officials wording documents passing off respnsibility and leaving themselves an out.

If Congress declares war, there is no debate here.  No questions.  No accusations the war is illegal and/or unjustified.  Congress lawfully authorizes war and lists its justification in the declaration.  Both Congress and the President left themselves open for the potshots that have been taken at them for doing it this way.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 14, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Let's don't derail this thread.  If you want to discuss the division of powers in general and who is and is not circumventing what, I suggest a new thread.  It isn't like Larkinn is bashful and has to have his arm twisted to play.
> 
> As it pertains to this specific instance, I don't like "playing at war," nor do I like elected officials wording documents passing off respnsibility and leaving themselves an out.
> 
> If Congress declares war, there is no debate here.  No questions.  No accusations the war is illegal and/or unjustified.  Congress lawfully authorizes war and lists its justification in the declaration.  Both Congress and the President left themselves open for the potshots that have been taken at them for doing it this way.



And I disagree, we HAVE a document that clearly spells out Congress agreed AND why they agreed. Same is if they had changed the title to " a Declaration of War". Further we have every year the Congress agreeing to fund said war. Thus the claim it is unconstitutional or illegal fails completely.

Using your logic, once Congress changed the new Congress could claim " we did not vote for war" and we would have the same problem. Even if the article allowing war was titled " A Declaration of War". We would still have Maineman and buddies telling us how some people voted against it.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 14, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And I disagree, we HAVE a document that clearly spells out Congress agreed AND why they agreed. Same is if they had changed the title to " a Declaration of War". Further we have every year the Congress agreeing to fund said war. Thus the claim it is unconstitutional or illegal fails completely.
> 
> Using your logic, once Congress changed the new Congress could claim " we did not vote for war" and we would have the same problem. Even if the article allowing war was titled " A Declaration of War". We would still have Maineman and buddies telling us how some people voted against it.



Incorrect.  A declaration of war is a declaration war.  Anything else is something else.  

I don't even know WHERE you get the second paragraph from.  Using my logic, we are calling a war what it is, and abiding by the Law of the Land -- the US Constitution -- in Congress declaring war.

There is NOTHING in anything I stated that says once a new Congress is seated that all actions taken by previous Congress's are null and void.  

In fact, I am saying just the opposite.  A declaration of war by Congress leaves NO doubt in anyone's mind, and while there may be those who disagree with the war itself, they have NO grounds to question it's legality insofar as the US Constituion is concerned.

Using YOUR logic, Congress can send the President a blank piece of paper titled "Budget for FY09" and authorize him to fill in the blanks as he pleases.

That is abdicating responsibility, period.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 14, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Incorrect.  A declaration of war is a declaration war.  Anything else is something else.
> 
> I don't even know WHERE you get the second paragraph from.  Using my logic, we are calling a war what it is, and abiding by the Law of the Land -- the US Constitution -- in Congress declaring war.
> 
> ...



Wrong again, However if the President filled out a budget request and had a proper member of each house get it into bill form AND the Congress agreed with it, then that WOULD IN FACT be how our Government works. 

Congress authorized the use of force, they authorized in clear and verifiable documents that they approved of the war in Iraq and they have continued to approve each year since by PAYING for it. That is exactly how our Government works.

Remind me? Did Thomas Jefferson declare war on the Barbary Pirates? Did any President ever get a declaration of war against any Indian tribe or nation? When we fought the Chinese in the early 1900's did we have a declaration of war? After the Spanish American war did we have a declaration of War in the Philippines? During the 20's and 30's did we declare war on any of the Central American and Caribean nations we fought?

History is FULL of examples of Congress NOT declaring war, all through our history. Yet they authorized each endeavor and paid for them.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Congress authorized the use of force, they authorized in clear and verifiable documents that they approved of the war in Iraq and they have continued to approve each year since by PAYING for it. That is exactly how our Government works.



Congress doesn't "approve" wars.  They DECLARE them.  Why are you having trouble understanding the difference?

When you successfully lobby congress, and the states, and get an amendment to the constitution that changes the wording to "shall have the power to approve war", you let me know.

Until then, Congress _declares_ war.  Anything else should be considered bullshit.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong again, However if the President filled out a budget request and had a proper member of each house get it into bill form AND the Congress agreed with it, then that WOULD IN FACT be how our Government works.
> 
> Congress authorized the use of force, they authorized in clear and verifiable documents that they approved of the war in Iraq and they have continued to approve each year since by PAYING for it. That is exactly how our Government works.
> 
> ...



You're calling me incorrect, but it is YOU who is talking around the actual topic.  The question is:  Should Congress have issued a declaration of War?"

Did we deploy the US military to invade a sovereign nation and completely remove its ruling infrastructure?  And then occupy that nation?

Yes, we did.

Is that war?

Yes, it is.

I have not stated that Congress did not authoize use of force nor pay for it.  I stated what I thought about Congress doing so.

By definition, we are at war, and if we are at war then war needs to be declared.

Your examples are weak.  The only action in which most of the US military was deployed that you name -- therefore was not a limited action handled by limited military involvement -- is the Spanish American War, and since the Phillippines were in fact a colony of Spain, no separate declaration of war was required.

But DO try to differentiate that it is my opinion there should be a declaration of war, and I have given my reasons why above.  I have not stated there HAS TO BE a declaration of war.  Hell, EVERY jarhead knows the President can deploy the Marine Corps for 180 days as he sees fit and doesn't evne need to ask Congress.

That isn't the point here.


----------

