PDA

View Full Version : Time to Rescind the Wars Powers Act Enactment


tiptap
05-05-2007, 10:44 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html?hp

"WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.

Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.

Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.

She supported the war early on, but she has turned into a staunch critic of the administration’s performance on Iraq. She has been saying that she granted Mr. Bush the authority to go to war based on intelligence reports at the time, but that the reports have since proved wrong.

Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.

Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the original authorization has been a persistent problem in her presidential bid when contrasted with the positions of other Democratic contenders.

Former Senator John Edwards has repudiated his vote for the war. After Mr. Byrd and Mrs. Clinton announced their plan, Mr. Edwards quickly put out a statement urging Congress to focus on withdrawing troops and not revoking the 2002 authorization.

“Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him,” Mr. Edwards said. “They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war and brings them home.”

Mrs. Clinton pointedly noted that she voted in 2002 to put a one-year limit on Mr. Bush’s war authority, an effort led by Mr. Byrd that failed. Mr. Edwards had opposed that limit.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who was not in Congress at the time of the vote, cites his consistent opposition to the war. Mr. Obama issued a statement on Thursday evening indicating that he would support the effort by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, beating Mrs. Clinton to the punch, called on Congress on Tuesday to withdraw authorization and develop a schedule for the rapid withdrawal of troops.

In February, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, another presidential contender, also raised the prospect of rewriting the authorization to give American forces a much more limited role in Iraq, but that approach ran into resistance from Democrats who said it could be perceived as giving new authority for the war.

Mrs. Clinton said her push for a new vote on the war authority did not mean she would oppose whatever new spending measure might emerge from negotiations between Congress and the White House. But she said she was joining Mr. Byrd in trying to force a new examination of the war in its entirety, rather than simply joust over specific elements of the spending measure.

Talking to reporters after her floor speech in a mostly empty Senate chamber, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her view was that rescinding the original vote would mean that troops would be out as of October. “They have no authority to continue,” she said. “That is the point.”

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions — a position she continued to support, her aides said.

The White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said the Clinton-Byrd proposal represented the same sort of artificial timeline that led Mr. Bush to veto the $124 billion spending bill on Tuesday.

“Here we go again,” she said. “The Senate is trying another way to put a surrender date on the calendar. Welcome to politics ’08-style.”

The idea of revoking authority for the war has circulated on Capitol Hill for weeks without gaining much ground. Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, had raised the idea because the original resolution did not envision the prospect of troops caught in a civil war.

Clinton aides said Thursday that while Mr. Byrd’s advisers had talked to them this winter about withdrawing authorization, the new plan only came up between the two senators and their staffs earlier in the day. Moreover, one adviser to Mrs. Clinton said, President Bush’s veto of the Iraq spending bill had left her believing that new types of pressure were needed to force the White House to adopt an exit strategy.

If the White House and Iraqis failed to meet certain benchmarks for progress, according to the proposed legislation, Mr. Bush would need to seek new authority from the Senate to continue in Iraq, which would render the 2002 authority moot, her aides said.

Whatever the prospects for that proposal, Congress and the White House took their first steps on Thursday toward trying to reach agreement on a revised spending measure, when the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, went to the Capitol to meet with Senate leaders of both parties and the leaders of the House Appropriations Committee.

The legislators would disclose few details, though Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said the talks were constructive. At the same time, Congressional Republicans expressed willingness to consider some form of benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet to demonstrate that it was bringing the situation there under control.

Democratic aides said the idea of short-term financing of the military was also gaining momentum among their leaders.

Both parties said the critical question would be how or whether to hold the Iraqis responsible for meeting benchmarks of progress. Democrats have suggested that failure to comply should lead directly to troop withdrawals, but Republicans open to the idea of putting teeth in the legislation said any penalties or incentives should be tied to nonmilitary aid.

“I don’t think benchmarks should be taken off the table as a way of putting accountability on the civilian side of the Iraqi effort,” said Representative Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 Republican in the House, who noted that state governments can have federal aid held up if they do not enforce federal laws adequately. “On the Iraqi politicians, it makes some sense, but not on our troops.”

Other Republicans said they were uncertain whether they could go along with penalizing the Iraqis for failing to show gains, but they made it clear that benchmarks were a likely part of any compromise. “I’m willing to talk about benchmarks, as I’ve said before,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader.

Mr. Reid and other Democrats said that all options, including timelines, remained on the table in their talks with the White House, and he raised the idea of giving the administration the ability to waive such requirements. But, he added, “we aren’t taking it all out.”

Don't care if Presidential politicing sets the push just want it done. We have signed ceasation of hostilities with the government of Iraq. War footing and options should not be at the Presidents whim without Congressional debate going forward.

trndobrd
05-05-2007, 11:14 AM
Don't care if Presidential politicing sets the push just want it done. We have signed ceasation of hostilities with the government of Iraq. War footing and options should not be at the Presidents whim without Congressional debate going forward.

Constitutionally, the proper venue for the Congress to have that debate, and make that determination is by funding, or not funding, a particular military action. It is disappointing that the Dems are unwilling to stand by their principles and refuse to have an up or down vote on a clean Iraq appropriations bill.

If the war is wrong, don't vote to continue putting money in. If it is worthwhile, spend more. The recent bill didn't need withdrawl dates or anything else. The Dems could have simply passed the bill, and immediately passed a resolution stating that it would be the final funding bill.

Taco John
05-05-2007, 11:19 AM
Constitutionally, the proper venue for the Congress to have that debate, and make that determination is by funding, or not funding, a particular military action. It is disappointing that the Dems are unwilling to stand by their principles and refuse to have an up or down vote on a clean Iraq appropriations bill.

If the war is wrong, don't vote to continue putting money in. If it is worthwhile, spend more. The recent bill didn't need withdrawl dates or anything else. The Dems could have simply passed the bill, and immediately passed a resolution stating that it would be the final funding bill.


Americans don't have a problem with Democrats putting withdrawls dates in these bills. There's nothing unconstitutional about what the Democrats are doing.

trndobrd
05-05-2007, 11:23 AM
Americans don't have a problem with Democrats putting withdrawls dates in these bills. There's nothing unconstitutional about what the Democrats are doing.


I didn't say it was unconstitutional.

BigMeatballDave
05-05-2007, 11:26 AM
What would happen if Congressed actually passed this?

StcChief
05-05-2007, 11:26 AM
Americans don't have a problem with Democrats putting withdrawls dates in these bills. There's nothing unconstitutional about what the Democrats are doing.

Go back and take the constitution test again (or did you in the first place).... It's a requirement to graduate from HS.

And the president can veto it to, which he did.

Congress power is in the purse, not micro-managing the war.

Foreign affairs, war declaration and running it are the Exec branch.

trndobrd
05-05-2007, 11:30 AM
Go back and take the constitution test again (or did you in the first place).... It's a requirement to graduate from HS.

And the president can veto it to, which he did.

Congress power is in the purse, not micro-managing the war.

Foreign affairs, war declaration and running it are the Exec branch.


I'm pretty sure Congress declares war.

BigMeatballDave
05-05-2007, 11:34 AM
I'm pretty sure Congress declares war.That's what I thought...

Mr. Laz
05-05-2007, 11:38 AM
i was going to read it ..... but the red print has blinded me.


just hope it's not permanent

http://www.unitedspongebob.com/pictures/spongebob/pants.jpg

StcChief
05-05-2007, 12:03 PM
I'm pretty sure Congress declares war.

that already happened.

StcChief
05-05-2007, 12:12 PM
i was going to read it ..... but the red print has blinded me.


just hope it's not permanent



Yeah another way would be to make it color=tan so it's completely invisible.... :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
05-05-2007, 12:33 PM
First, Congress doesn't have the stones to do this. Ever since passage of the War Powers Act, Congress has given itself a blank check for having their cake and eating it too....on the one hand, giving Presidents authority to act, and then when and if things go South, and on the other hand....they get to blame the President for something they, vaguely, authorized him to do. It's the best of both worlds for them. The only "accountability" for any decisions or actions in such an arrangement rests with the Executive branch. How convenient.

It's akin to a board of directors saying, to the CEO, "....you go right ahead and do that. We think this is a good idea; and we will back you." Then, when things don't work out, screaming: "We can't believe the CEO did this. What an idiot. Let's fire him. Afterall, this is all HIS fault."

Second, any thought of redistributing diplomatic and foreign affairs powers would have to pass Constitutional scrutiny. What tiptap is suggesting, IMO would require a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

StcChief
05-05-2007, 12:52 PM
First, Congress doesn't have the stones to do this. Ever since passage of the War Powers Act, Congress has given itself a blank check for having their cake and eating it too....on the one hand, giving Presidents authority to act, and then when and if things go South, and on the other hand....they get to blame the President for something they, vaguely, authorized him to do. It's the best of both worlds for them. The only "accountability" for any decisions or actions in such an arrangement rests with the Executive branch. How convenient.

It's akin to a board of directors saying, to the CEO, "....you go right ahead and do that. We think this is a good idea; and we will back you." Then, when things don't work out, screaming: "We can't believe the CEO did this. What an idiot. Let's fire him. Afterall, this is all HIS fault."

Second, any thought of redistributing diplomatic and foreign affairs powers would have to pass Constitutional scrutiny. What tiptap is suggesting, IMO would require a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. Agreed The War powers act works well for congress. Take credit or pass the buck....

Power of the purse. Like they got the balls to pull funding.

They have been trying to micro-manage this war for a long time.

Political hay and exposure to themselves is what they get.

Watching them flip-flop is really the best. and trying to get out of it if the polls change.

Taco John
05-05-2007, 03:01 PM
Go back and take the constitution test again (or did you in the first place).... It's a requirement to graduate from HS.

And the president can veto it to, which he did.

Congress power is in the purse, not micro-managing the war.

Foreign affairs, war declaration and running it are the Exec branch.



I say again: There's nothing unconstitutional about what the Democrats are doing.

Baby Lee
05-05-2007, 03:12 PM
You make a compelling point.

noa
05-05-2007, 03:52 PM
You make a compelling point.

No more Walter Benjamin-esque complex prose from the great mind of Baby Lee? I kind of miss it.
Boy, one confrontation really neutered you. :p

Logical
05-05-2007, 04:27 PM
The print is yellow for me and I am not going to bother. I doubt you can retroactively withdraw the war powers.

Mr. Kotter
05-05-2007, 04:39 PM
The print is yellow for me and I am not going to bother. I doubt you can retroactively withdraw the war powers.It doesn't matter much, really.

If the War Powers Act was ever really challenged in federal court, it would probably be struck down....as a unconstitutional redistribution of Constitutional powers (and a violation of separation of powers,) similar to the way the courts ruled the federal line-item veto invalid.

No worry though; Congress likes having it both ways.....supporting war when it's popular, and blaming the President when things go badly (while they try to distance themselves from their complicity--and simultaneously don't have the balls to pull funding.) It's really a pretty convenient excuse/arrangement for them, as is.

I don't suspect they will challenge it in court for fear of losing it....

BucEyedPea
05-05-2007, 04:44 PM
Correct me if I am wrong Kotter but that article ( I only skimmed it) looks to me like Clinton is referring to the authority as per the 2002 resolution which Bush used to go into Iraq. Not the actual War Powers Act itself.

Mr. Kotter
05-05-2007, 05:07 PM
Correct me if I am wrong Kotter but that article ( I only skimmed it) looks to me like Clinton is referring to the authority as per the 2002 resolution which Bush used to go into Iraq. Not the actual War Powers Act itself.
You are correct. However, this action will call into question the conflict between Presidential and Congressional authority in such matters...and, ultimately, the 1973 War Powers Act. Which will make for interesting political and constitutional theater, if Congress decides to press the issue.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2007, 05:13 PM
You are correct. However, this action will call into question the conflict between Presidential and Congressional authority in such matters...and, ultimately, the 1973 War Powers Act. Which will make for interesting political and constitutional theater, if Congress decides to press the issue.
Such resolutions are a result of that act. It would be great if discussed.
I agree the Dems are being cowardly and want their cake and eat it too.
Paul says cutting funds need not hurt the troops if done right. They're just hiding behind that.

Mr. Kotter
05-05-2007, 05:23 PM
Such resolutions are a result of that act. It would be great if discussed.
I agree the Dems are being cowardly and want their cake and eat it too.
Paul says cutting funds need not hurt the troops if done right. They're just hiding behind that.Exactly. However, it requires political courage--the kind courage that is in short supply on BOTH sides of the isle. In fairness, all they can think of (understandably) is the political fallout of Republicans demagoguing them with the "you aren't funding the troops!" rhetoric.

Such a debate would do two things: it would force those urging a withdrawal to answer the concerns of the administration over an abrupt withdrawal by some predetermined time-line; and it would force those saying we have to finish the job....to, in more specific terms, define what the mean, and to outline their conditions for withdrawal.

It would be a beneficial and insightful debate, for both sides.

Just don't expect it to happen....:shake:

kramhca_

BucEyedPea
05-05-2007, 05:41 PM
About a month ago. I looked up how Vietnam ended....and the Dems just pulled the funds. Plan and simple. I read that Nixon was even trying to make certain gaurantees to the South Vietnamese right in the middle of it.

What happened?

I mean it's not like this war is popular or anything with the average American.

Logical
05-05-2007, 06:00 PM
Such resolutions are a result of that act. It would be great if discussed.
I agree the Dems are being cowardly and want their cake and eat it too.
Paul says cutting funds need not hurt the troops if done right. They're just hiding behind that.Sorry but this is why he is just a nutjob.

go bo
05-05-2007, 06:24 PM
i saw congressman paul for the first time in the republican presidential debate...

if he's not a nutjob, he sure did a good job of looking like one...

Ugly Duck
05-05-2007, 07:00 PM
If the war is wrong, don't vote to continue putting money in. If it is worthwhile, spend more.

Wrong. You assume that ending the funding would bring the troops home. Not this time, not with the neocons in power. The neocons would send our boyz out short on fuel and ammo and then claim dat dem Dems hung them out to dry. Normally, I'd support defunding the occupation - but not with these freaks in power.... the neocons would sacrifice our boyz in a heartbeat to regain political clout. I hope we don't give those neocon iceholes the opportunity to use the lives of our troops as pawns in some Rovian scheme to turn back the anti-neocon tide.

Mr. Kotter
05-05-2007, 08:00 PM
About a month ago. I looked up how Vietnam ended....and the Dems just pulled the funds. Plan and simple. I read that Nixon was even trying to make certain gaurantees to the South Vietnamese right in the middle of it.

What happened?

I mean it's not like this war is popular or anything with the average American.

That's why this is all a charade right now. Congress forced Nixon's hand; they could Bush's too...IF they had the political courage to do so. They don't.

IF Congress earmarked spending sent to the military, designating it for specific activities and priorities....they could force the President's hand on this, at least insofar as he'd have to publicly "reallocate" funding to serve his goals. If he thinks his approval ratings are in the tank now....imagine what they would be if he "reallocated" funding to ensure defensive capabilities and "security"....for offensive capabilities. He just may get impeached were he to try that. And, maybe, rightfully so.

kramhca_

BucEyedPea
05-05-2007, 09:35 PM
That's why this is all a charade right now. Congress forced Nixon's hand; they could Bush's too...IF they had the political courage to do so. They don't.

IF Congress earmarked spending sent to the military, designating it for specific activities and priorities....they could force the President's hand on this, at least insofar as he'd have to publicly "reallocate" funding to serve his goals. If he thinks his approval ratings are in the tank now....imagine what they would be if he "reallocated" funding to ensure defensive capabilities and "security"....for offensive capabilities. He just may get impeached were he to try that. And, maybe, rightfully so.

kramhca_
IIRC Paul also said troops have been given what needed and all congress has to say is after a certain point in time no more money which puts it on Bush's head then. There's a lot of special interest money keeping us there as well.

This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit.—Ron Paul

Lol! Seems to me they either (1) want to see if the surge will work, while appearing to be on the American electorate's side. (2) Pay to have it fail so they can gain power. (3) Just plain afraid to really take responsibility (4) Beholden to special interest money.

But I think people are catching on. Lou Dobbs had two Democratic strategists on last week and both admitted people are fed up with both parties. Polls are showing they don't favor the Dems either.

trndobrd
05-05-2007, 09:49 PM
Wrong. You assume that ending the funding would bring the troops home. Not this time, not with the neocons in power. The neocons would send our boyz out short on fuel and ammo and then claim dat dem Dems hung them out to dry. Normally, I'd support defunding the occupation - but not with these freaks in power.... the neocons would sacrifice our boyz in a heartbeat to regain political clout. I hope we don't give those neocon iceholes the opportunity to use the lives of our troops as pawns in some Rovian scheme to turn back the anti-neocon tide.


If there is no money, there is no war. That is not an assumption.

What you are saying is that the 'neocons' cannot be stopped from continuing the war and sacrificing our 'boyz'. Therefore, the only option that 'dem Dems' have is to continue funding?

I think what you are really saying is the Dems are unwilling to take a principled stand as they had promised running up to Nov '06.

Logical
05-05-2007, 09:56 PM
If there is no money, there is no war. That is not an assumption.

What you are saying is that the 'neocons' cannot be stopped from continuing the war and sacrificing our 'boyz'. Therefore, the only option that 'dem Dems' have is to continue funding?

I think what you are really saying is the Dems are unwilling to take a principled stand as they had promised running up to Nov '06.Can you provide some links to the Dems saying they would vote to cut funds to the troops?

BucEyedPea
05-05-2007, 10:20 PM
I think what you are really saying is the Dems are unwilling to take a principled stand as they had promised running up to Nov '06.
:clap:

Mr. Kotter
05-05-2007, 10:41 PM
.... Seems to me they either (1) want to see if the surge will work, while appearing to be on the American electorate's side. (2) Pay to have it fail so they can gain power. (3) Just plain afraid to really take responsibility (4) Beholden to special interest money.

But I think people are catching on. Lou Dobbs had two Democratic strategists on last week and both admitted people are fed up with both parties. Polls are showing they don't favor the Dems either.
Exactly right; on all four counts.

People are catching on; it's why Hillary, or Obama will be left shaking their heads a year from November wondering..."how is it possible for us to have lost? I bet they STOLE the election....again. Bastards." :)

Can you provide some links to the Dems saying they would vote to cut funds to the troops?

They aren't; they saying it. But that's what they want: an end to the war. That means pulling troops. You cut funds, the President HAS to pull troops. Period. End of discussion.

They are just too big of pussies to do it, IMO. :rolleyes:

trndobrd
05-05-2007, 10:55 PM
Can you provide some links to the Dems saying they would vote to cut funds to the troops?


I didn't say they promised to cut funds 'to the troops' (although Kucinich did, but that is kind of low hanging fruit). Most Democrats ran on some variation of an immediate withdrawl, the Murtha 6 month for full redeployment, Pelosi's 'phased redployment by 2006' plan, or some other worded 'new direction' inopposite of the Bush administration's policies. (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060802-114806-7928r.htm)

Of the 73 Democratic members of the Out of Iraq Caucus only 7 voted against the Iraq funding bill.

trndobrd
05-05-2007, 11:03 PM
Personally, I think the Dems are hurting themselves for 2008 by not taking a stand. Unless there is a significant change in circumstance or policy, there will continue to be a decline in popular support.

If they continue their current strategy, the will lose the grassroots support they had in 2006. Not that the Code Pink membership will register Republican en masse, but they certainly won't have the energy and fire of '06.

The Democrats will generally be seen as bearing just as much responsibility for Iraq as the Republicans, eliminating one clearly separating issue that worked in their favor.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-05-2007, 11:10 PM
No more Walter Benjamin-esque complex prose from the great mind of Baby Lee? I kind of miss it.
Boy, one confrontation really neutered you. :p

Wow, a Benjamin reference.

Give him credit, at least it's not Hortense Spillers or Judith Butler, Benjamin is Dr. Suessian in his lucidity compared to those two.

Logical
05-06-2007, 12:30 AM
I didn't say they promised to cut funds 'to the troops' (although Kucinich did, but that is kind of low hanging fruit). Most Democrats ran on some variation of an immediate withdrawl, the Murtha 6 month for full redeployment, Pelosi's 'phased redployment by 2006' plan, or some other worded 'new direction' inopposite of the Bush administration's policies. (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060802-114806-7928r.htm)

Of the 73 Democratic members of the Out of Iraq Caucus only 7 voted against the Iraq funding bill.

I think you give the electorate more credit than they deserve. They will know the democrats passed a timetable for pulling out the troops and won't even know it was non-binding let alone it won't matter that Bush vetoed it. They will just remember all the news media talking about how the Democrats voted for a timetable for withdrawal.

mlyonsd
05-06-2007, 08:03 AM
If anything this is proof Clinton is flailing.

It also is another slight of hand illusion. At some point the dems will face the consequences of failing to get the troops home.

They're hedging their bets that the American people will fall for the ruse but the election is too far away for them to get away with it IMO. It may work on the political hacks of the party but the average voter just might be ready to throw everyone in poliitcs out by Nov. 2008.

StcChief
05-06-2007, 08:24 AM
If anything this is proof Clinton is flailing.

It also is another slight of hand illusion. At some point the dems will face the consequences of failing to get the troops home.

They're hedging their bets that the American people will fall for the ruse but the election is too far away for them to get away with it IMO. It may work on the political hacks of the party but the average voter just might be ready to throw everyone in poliitcs out by Nov. 2008.
In a heart beat.

Replace everyone up for election.

go bo
05-06-2007, 01:31 PM
that already happened.iirc, the last declaration of war was wwII...

neither korea nor vietnam were "declared" wars...

and neither the first nor the second iraq war involved a declaration of war by congress...

Mr. Kotter
05-06-2007, 09:26 PM
I think you give the electorate more credit than they deserve. They will know the democrats passed a timetable for pulling out the troops and won't even know it was non-binding let alone it won't matter that Bush vetoed it. They will just remember all the news media talking about how the Democrats voted for a timetable for withdrawal.As it, rightfully, should be too. :thumb:

The deadlines may be "non-binding"....but they would be, at a minimum, disruptive and coercive.

Logical
05-06-2007, 09:42 PM
As it, rightfully, should be too. :thumb:

The deadlines may be "non-binding"....but they would be, at a minimum, disruptive and coercive.

Are you sure you want to agree with me?

Mr. Kotter
05-06-2007, 09:50 PM
Are you sure you want to agree with me?

Sure...."dad." ;)

At least on this; especially something you seem to be right about, anyway. Alas, it's more rare these days....



:)

Adept Havelock
05-07-2007, 03:58 PM
iirc, the last declaration of war was wwII...


You are correct. June 5, 1942 to be specific.

BucEyedPea
05-07-2007, 04:37 PM
You are correct. June 5, 1942 to be specific.
We no longer "declare" due to our UN membership which is true of many member countries pretty much. Some have just remained at war with each other like Iraq/ Syria regarding Israel and N/SK. Most wars today are undeclared wars or deemed "military or police actions" under the UN: Korea and Vietnam were done under UN/SEATO, PGWI was under UN and we went into this one enforcing UN resolutions even if we didn't get the SC vote, Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo was under NATO/UN. These are deemed police-keeping aka military actions. Even Truman referred to Korea as a "police action."

UN Participation Act which was passed due to our UN membership. I believe this is why people like Henry Hyde say "Declaring War" is anachronism. Federalist Society has a good analysis of how this relates to declaring war.