Was the Iraq War constitutional?

[TIMB0B]

A comment from a "friend" on facebook:

Don't try and rewrite history to suit your world view. 'The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1]Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.'

You might not have liked it, but it was a fully authorized and legal action taken. Saying otherwise at this point only makes you uninformed.

Is the resolution simply an abuse of the constitution, or legal?

 

[Wolverine302]

It is not a formal declaration of war, the security council authorized the use of military force, the congress was consulted but to confuse the two as the same is being misinformed.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just because congress or the president authorizes something doesn't make it constitutional. RP has in the past submitted articles of marque and reprisal to give legitimacy to the invasion(s), but they never passed. If congress or the president can do whatever, whenever the hell they want, the Constitution is meaningless (which in practice it is).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It is not a formal declaration of war, the security council authorized the use of military force, the congress was consulted but to confuse the two as the same is being misinformed.

This too^^

 

[FrankRep]

United States was enforcing UN Resolutions and didn't officially declare War in Iraq. That makes it Un-Constitutional.


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

2002: George Bush's Agenda Behind Disarming Iraq
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?271209-George-Bush-s-Agenda-Behind-Disarming-Iraq

2003: United Nations Benefited From Iraq War
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...sarming-Iraq&p=3011610&viewfull=1#post3011610

 

[BamaAla]

I believe that it was Constitutional. Obviously there was no declaration of war, but the Constitution is vague on the issue.

 

[bluesc]

Your friend is wrong.

 

[otherone]

"fully authorized and legal".
Why does your "friend" believe America is subordinate to the UN?

 

[FrankRep]

"fully authorized and legal".
Why does your "friend" believe America is subordinate to the UN?

Maybe his friend is an Obama supporter.


June 17, 2011

Obama Claims The United Nations Can Usurp U.S. Congressional War Authority

 

[Zippyjuan]

From the US Constitution: Congress shall have the power to

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

A good article from the CFR on the issue:

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/balance-war-powers-us-president-congress/p13092

What are the president’s war powers?

The U.S. Constitution empowers the president to wage wars as commander in chief while Congress has the power to declare wars and fund them. But chief executives from both major parties often differ with Congress over their ability to deploy military power. A number of experts believe presidents have demonstrated greater power to wage wars since the end of World War II. "The president has been commander in chief since 1789, but this notion that they can go to war whenever they want, and [ignore] Congress, that's a post-World War II attitude," says Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project (and former specialist in constitutional law at the Library of Congress).

Legal experts Noah Feldman and Samuel Issacharoff wrote in March 2007 in Slate that the Constitution intended the president to have the power to wage war effectively. "In the modern era, no country--not even a parliamentary democracy--has been so foolhardy as to place a war under the guidance of a legislative body, rather than a single, unified command."

Adds Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law: "Bringing up troops from the rear is right at the core of the command function [of] presidential power."

But other experts point to established limits of presidential power during wartime, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1952 ruling that struck down President Harry S. Truman's order to maintain operations of the country's steel mills for national security reasons, which was found to be against the will of Congress. Some point to the Supreme Court's 2006 Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling--which found special military commissions established by the Bush administration to be illegal--to stress the shared wartime powers of the president and Congress. Susan Low Bloch, a constitutional law expert at the Georgetown University Law Center, says the framers of the Constitution deliberately divided the war powers between the two branches to induce them to work together on such a vital issue. "I don't know if they expected conflict, but they wanted coordination and cooperation and shared responsibility," Bloch says.

http://www.rense.com/general30/grant.htm

Congress Grants Bush War
Powers Against Iraq
By Vicki Allen
10-11-2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush turns his attention on Friday to the United Nations after the Senate joined the House in strong votes authorizing a possible U.S. attack on Iraq.

The Republican-led House and Democratic-led Senate by wide margins approved the resolution that Bush wanted to reinforce his demand that the U.N. Security Council threaten the use of force, if necessary, to enforce its requirements that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein abandon programs for biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement issued after the early-hours vote.

"Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world, and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must," Bush said.

The House earlier Thursday passed the resolution 296-133 after three days of debate.

 

[otherone]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
how cute!

 

[FrankRep]

From the US Constitution: Congress shall have the power to
A good article from the CFR on the issue:

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/balance-war-powers-us-president-congress/p13092

Hey Zippy,

Show me the official Declaration of War from the United States Congress. You will only find congress supporting the enforcement of United Nations' resolutions, which is UnConstitutional.


Not an official Declaration of War:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.Res114:

 

[moderate libertarian]

Was the Iraq War constitutional?

That is like asking, "Was a violent expression of revenge, racism,greed based on cooked up lies constitutional?".

Outside of some religious/profiteering fanatics and extreme racist ideologists, I don't think anyon else sees that exercise "constitutional" today. That is why sometimes I wonder maybe election of Barack Hussien Obama was the right medicine after that huge blunder as damaging as it has been for rest of the body politic.

 

[No Free Beer]

I believe that it was Constitutional. Obviously there was no declaration of war, but the Constitution is vague on the issue.

Wrong.

A DOW is when the Congress officially declares war by declaring the following:

The country
Why
The objective/mission/goals
Cost (estimate)


With Iraq, two of three were given. There was no OBJECTIVE given. Not only that, Iraq was not a thread to our national security.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It goes even further. Technically, the AUMF was a transfer of war authority from Congress to the Executive. The Executive is not authorized to engage war unilaterally, but that's the authority that the AUMF gave him. It's blatantly unconstitutional because Congress abdicated it's duty to declare war and just handed it to the President and said "here, have fun!"

While it's true that an argument could be made that a Congressional bill short of a formal declaration might be Constitutional (I personally disagree, but can see how such an argument could be made) no such argument can be made about the AUMF. The AUMF was not an authorization short of a formal declaration, it was an unconstitutional transfer of war authority from Congress to the President.

 

[klamath]

That is like asking, "Was a violent expression of revenge, racism,greed based on cooked up lies constitutional?".

Outside of some religious/profiteering fanatics and extreme racist ideologists, I don't think anyon else sees that exercise "constitutional" today. That is why sometimes I wonder maybe election of Barack Hussien Obama was the right medicine after that huge blunder as damaging as it has been for rest of the body politic.

It is funny that you say that. Bush did go before congress and get an authorization for use of force before both afganistan and Iraq of which both passed. Thought not constitutional because congress deligated its responsiblility on whether to start a war or not to the president. Obama however has gone to war without even getting that from congress and then went on to violate even the war powers act.

 

[BamaAla]

Wrong.

A DOW is when the Congress officially declares war by declaring the following:

The country
Why
The objective/mission/goals
Cost (estimate)


With Iraq, two of three were given. There was no OBJECTIVE given. Not only that, Iraq was not a thread to our national security.

I don't believe the Constitution says any of that. If it does, I'd be glad to adjust my answer. The Constitution is vague on the subject; thus, Constitutional lawyers/scholars are split on the issue. We all dislike it for our own reasons, but I don't believe that the resolution was expressly unconstitutional.

 

[thoughtomator]

For one, a declaration of war is usually titled something like "Declaration of War against X".

The question is, why dance around it? Why try to pretend it wasn't a war when everyone knew it was a war?

 

[otherone]

For one, a declaration of war is usually titled something like "Declaration of War against X".

The question is, why dance around it? Why try to pretend it wasn't a war when everyone knew it was a war?

Because 'war' has 'rules'.

 

[narrowphoenix]

Yeah well the NDAA, Federal Reserve, Medicare, Social Security, Income Tax, and many other "laws" are NOW fully authorized and legal, does that make them constitutional??? Ummmmmmmmmmmm, NO!