Is this war Constitutional?

[Scofield]

Would the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq technically be considered a quasi-"Declaration of War?" Congress did afterall give the President the authority to use militay force in Iraq.

Ergo, isn't this war "Constitutional" no matter how immoral it is?

I am hoping someone can prove this wrong, because I would love for this war to be Unconstitutional, so we could get our brothers and sisters out of that hell-hole.

 

[smoke.stack]

I think that it's unconstitutional because congress gave bush the power to declare war.

AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

From my understanding, congress cannot give the president the authority to declare war. congress has a responsibility to keep the president in check.. when they hand these powers over to the president, then the checks and balances of the constitution are undermined; therefor, I would say it is unconstitutional.. but I am by no means an expert.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts;

you can also argue that it isn't constitutional to go to war under UN resolutions as well.

This is a major factor in the joint resolution we are talking about here, so I think it's a biggie, but they have been going to war since Korea under these UN resolutions, and they have gotten away with it, so it really doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not, obviously. I mean, they seem to do what they want, and then they will build up a false paradigm around whatever action they settle on in the end.

 

[scipio337]

That depends, I guess, on your take of the War Powers Act of 1973, but even then, this one doesn't live up to that criterea.

Madison, Jefferson and Madison all carried out act of war with no Congressional declaration (although Congress did approve military action, commission of a navy, etc.), but nothing of this scope or length.

 

[Alex Libman]

The last truly Constitutional war the U.S. has been in was the war of 1812(and possibly some campaigns against Native American raiders).

 

[IRO-bot]

That depends, I guess, on your take of the War Powers Act of 1973, but even then, this one doesn't live up to that criterea.

Madison, Jefferson and Madison all carried out act of war with no Congressional declaration (although Congress did approve military action, commission of a navy, etc.), but nothing of this scope or length.

Yeah their "wars" like the barbary wars involved like 10 ships. That's it.


Wasn't WWI and WWII Constitutional?

 

[James Madison]

The last truly Constitutional war the U.S. has been in was the war of 1812(and possibly some campaigns against Native American raiders).

Thought we declared war in 1941 against Japan, Germany, and Italy.

 

[Danke]

Would the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq technically be considered a quasi-"Declaration of War?" Congress did afterall give the President the authority to use militay force in Iraq.

Ergo, isn't this war "Constitutional" no matter how immoral it is?

I am hoping someone can prove this wrong, because I would love for this war to be Unconstitutional, so we could get our brothers and sisters out of that hell-hole.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1562327&postcount=61