Was the Iraq War constitutional?

[Liberty74]

Your friend is using semantics to justify his reason that the Iraq war was Constitutional.

Was there a Declaration of War for Iraq by Congress? If so, tell him to produce it which he CAN'T. America hasn't declared war Constitutionally since WWII. And just because crooks in a building can pass a resolution or any other law doesn't mean that they are following the Constitution. This leads to a slippery slop argument allowing the crooks and the person occupying the WH to do whatever they want - launch illegal wars, hide behind the U.N like Obama did in Libya.

I bet your friend can find the Declaration of War just like he can find those WDNs too in Iraq that threatened America.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

It doesn't have to be called "Declaration of War"

But the idea is that Congress makes the decision BEFORE the President

 

[FrankRep]

It doesn't have to be called "Declaration of War"

But the idea is that Congress makes the decision BEFORE the President

The President can decide anything s/he wants, but they don't have the authority to declare war without congressional approval.

 

[ChickenHawk]

The Constitution gives Congress "the power to declare war". However, it doesn't seem to require it and it does not define what constitutes a declaration. I'm not sure that a declaration is defined under federal law either but I could be wrong about that. The Iraq war resolution was a declaration in all but name. Also, we were still at war with Iraq but hostilities were on hold under the terms of a ceasefire that Iraq was in repeated violation of. The courts have repeatedly ruled that a "resolution" is acceptable. I'm not saying the courts can't be wrong but if the courts had ruled that the Iraq War Resolution did not constitute a proper declaration Congress would have simply passed a resolution that was. The fact is that both the legislative and executive branches of the government supported the war so if they felt the war was unconstitutional the could have and would have changed the approach to it so it would be constitutional. The whole point of the separation of powers on this issue is to prevent the president or the congress from taking the country to war unilaterally. Although there is some argument whether or not it was all done in an perfectly constitutional manner the basic protection the founders built into the constitution did not break down in this instance. The bottom line is that nothing in the constitution could have stopped the Iraq war so arguing whether or not every "t" was crossed and every "i" dotted is somewhat of a waste of time.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

The President can decide anything s/he wants, but they don't have the authority to declare war without congressional approval.

Well, I am talking about the actual use of force being taken.

 

[Kregisen]

I've been wondering this question myself.

 

[klamath]

The Constitution gives Congress "the power to declare war". However, it doesn't seem to require it and it does not define what constitutes a declaration. I'm not sure that a declaration is defined under federal law either but I could be wrong about that. The Iraq war resolution was a declaration in all but name. Also, we were still at war with Iraq but hostilities were on hold under the terms of a ceasefire that Iraq was in repeated violation of. The courts have repeatedly ruled that a "resolution" is acceptable. I'm not saying the courts can't be wrong but if the courts had ruled that the Iraq War Resolution did not constitute a proper declaration Congress would have simply passed a resolution that was. The fact is that both the legislative and executive branches of the government supported the war so if they felt the war was unconstitutional the could have and would have changed the approach to it so it would be constitutional. The whole point of the separation of powers on this issue is to prevent the president or the congress from taking the country to war unilaterally. Although there is some argument whether or not it was all done in an perfectly constitutional manner the basic protection the founders built into the constitution did not break down in this instance. The bottom line is that nothing in the constitution could have stopped the Iraq war so arguing whether or not every "t" was crossed and every "i" dotted is somewhat of a waste of time.

Then Why didn't they when asked to?

Last week, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is – a war – and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary.

It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations dozens of times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s generosity in "consulting" legislators about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.

I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.

Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand the Constitution. One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be "frivolous." I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it.

When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.


Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Klamath is right^^ Even if your friend tries to bring up the WPA, that didn't give the POTUS new power to unilaterally invade without congress' consent.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

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.

the AUMF is about a vague as vague can get.

and along the same lines, let us not forget the WPA and the WPR <--- especially the WPR. because, imho, the language of the AUMF indicates that its validity rests, not on the constitution, but on the WPR. it's also my humble opinion that the WPR is unconstitutional.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

A declaration of war was intended, consistent with just war principles, to simply be a formal announcement by an official organ of government with appropriate authority, that a state of war exists between country A and country B. It is an acknowledgement that a war has started, that justifies a military RESPONSE including lethal force, and a description of who the enemy is, and what the terms of closure (victory, defeat, truce or armistice) or 'exit' scenario is for the cessation of hostilities.

What it positively NOT, is a granting of authority to INITIATE force, against an undefined enemy, for a military campaign that has no defined exit. The constitution does not give any branch of the federal government to launch aggression or mass murder for an indefinite period of time. Thus Congress does not have constitutional power to 'write the President a blank check' to slaughter and kill based on unproven allegations, to sanction, bomb or occupy countries for decades, or change the mission or expand it indefinitely.

The complete distortion of a highly specific and limited power delegated to Congress to announce a self-defense context for war, into an all stops out blank check for endless military action obliterates the just war protocol. Electing a President Paul will bring back the original constitutional usage and a sane understanding as to when to go to war.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It was not called literally a "Declaration of War between the United States and Iraq" but Congress did vote to authorize the President as Commander in Chief to engage in military actions against Iraq. They subsequently further passed bills which funded and continued to fund operations there- this is further consent.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/11/26/greenslade.htm

In October of 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114. This resolution, which was not a formal declaration of war, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. A review of the resolution shows it was Congress that determined Iraq had "nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them." It was Congress that determined Iraq posed "a continuing threat to the national security of the United States…by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability". It was Congress that determined Iraq was "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." It was Congress that determined "members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States…are…in Iraq." It was Congress that determined Iraq was "in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions." And it was Congress that determined that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions would be enforced--"through the use of force if necessary."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It was not called literally a "Declaration of War between the United States and Iraq" but Congress did vote to authorize the President as Commander in Chief to engage in military actions against Iraq. They subsequently further passed bills which funded and continued to fund operations there- this is further consent.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/11/26/greenslade.htm

Exactly. This is Congress surrendering its lawful power to the executive-a dereliction of duty, and unconstitutional IMO.

 

[FrankRep]

It was not called literally a "Declaration of War between the United States and Iraq" but Congress did vote to authorize the President as Commander in Chief to engage in military actions against Iraq. They subsequently further passed bills which funded and continued to fund operations there- this is further consent.

... to engage in military actions against Iraq to Enforce United Nations' Resolutions.


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

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Exactly. This is Congress surrendering its lawful power to the executive-a dereliction of duty, and unconstitutional IMO.

Correct. Congress has the power to declare war, it does not have the authority to just abdicate that power to the Executive.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Correct. Congress has the power to declare war, it does not have the authority to just abdicate that power to the Executive.

I think that is a fair argument but they only do it because the courts allow it. If the courts didn't allow it they would simply pass a "declaration". The outcome is pretty much exactly the same.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Correct. Congress has the power to declare war, it does not have the authority to just abdicate that power to the Executive.

Thanks. The question then becomes-how can congress be punished? This is not just some little snafu like misappropriating funds due to poor accounting or something. Congress' dereliction has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I doubt the personal wealth of every member of both chambers of the congress could repay it.

 

[Bonnieblue]

NO!

 

[Bonnieblue]

Thanks. The question then becomes-how can congress be punished? This is not just some little snafu like misappropriating funds due to poor accounting or something. Congress' dereliction has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I doubt the personal wealth of every member of both chambers of the congress could repay it.

Only the states could punish Congress with interposition, nullification or threat of secession; however, today, given the brute force used to put down the last attempt and given 150 years of re-education, it is highly unlikely that a governor or a legislature would call the people to elect a convention of the people to consider the matter. Were such a convention to be held, the people would likely not understand anyway.

Otherwise, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which can be done.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It was not called literally a "Declaration of War between the United States and Iraq" but Congress did vote to authorize the President as Commander in Chief to engage in military actions against Iraq. They subsequently further passed bills which funded and continued to fund operations there- this is further consent.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/11/26/greenslade.htm

Congress does NOT have the power under the constitution to 'consent' to abdicate its war power decision-making to the Executive, nor the power under the constitution to authorize the initiation of aggression. The document presumes a tightly limited, just war basis for deciding on military action, apart from which self-defense context those lethal actions are simply aggression and mass murder. Modern statist government presumes the opposite, or an 'at-will,' no-difference between aggression and self-defense basis for waging war.

 

[Travlyr]

Thanks. The question then becomes-how can congress be punished? This is not just some little snafu like misappropriating funds due to poor accounting or something. Congress' dereliction has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I doubt the personal wealth of every member of both chambers of the congress could repay it.

That answer is easy. Separation of money and government. Getting it done is the hard part.