That doesn’t make any sense. That exact same reasoning applies to the authorizations themselves. Why would they be so different from the determinations?
The reason the determinations are written as “or” and “either”, is because that’s how the authorizations are meant to be understood. That’s also why they are separated out and ennumerated in the way that they are. There are two distinct authorizations, and the President could act on either one, or both, as the language of 3(b) makes clear.
Do you actually believe what you’re writing, at this point?
Keep piling that straw.
And, follow up with a canned talking point totally unrelated to the matter under discussion. The ol’ reliable playbook being followed to a T.
They are different aren’t they? So why did they use ‘and’ in the authorization clause but use ‘or’ in the reporting clause? Your interpretation makes no sense at all. I have given you the reason they differ.
Your argument requires that the drafters of the AUMF screwed up and wrote ‘and’ where they meant to wrote ‘or’.
If you wish to claim your knowledge of that mistake being made, then a counter argument would be that the mistake goes the other way. The drafters meant to write ‘and’ in both clauses.
I need not go with wild speculation that what was written is not what was meant.
I was commenting on the perfection of the last line. And, yes, it is a fact it is perfect. My citations for both it’s truth and appropriateness are your wall of posts.
If that is a fact to you then you are not here to debate, you must be here to here to gossip. I have been citing the AUMF exactly as written. This is no wall of text to explain that. What else you got on me?
XT agrees with my main point that Bush was not enforcing UNSC resolutions when he decided to kick inspectors out. Do you think Bush was enforcing 1441 when he ordered the invasion of Iraq or do you agree with me and XT?
That’s a fair question since you decided to join in.
Because they are professional lawmakers, who know how to write statutes. An emmunerated list of authorizations is just that, multiple authorizations.
No, you have not. You gave a reason why Congress would want to give separate authorizations, as your argument for why they didn’t do that. Even by your standards, that is illogical.
Nope.
It should be clear by now that you are unable to read statutes and realize what was meant. Remember your inability to find any Congressman or legal expert who agreed with your interpretation? “Dershowitz or no Dershowitz”, you only need the text, all that? Time to face it: you do not understand the text.
Do you mean that ‘multiple authorizations’ must be read as ‘one’ if they are printed in an enumerated list? Specifically does that mean that language used in separate parts of the enumerated list must be applied to all the sections to clarify the authorization?
What? No. Multiple anything aren’t meant to be read as one.
What?
I don’t know if you’re over-thinking this or are just amazingly obstinate. How about an example:
Bob, the head of a HOA, is drafting the rules for his security guards. He writes the following:
HOA security personnel are authorized to use physical force in order to:
Defend themselves from an attack; and
Intervene in a crime in progress.
Jack the security guard sees a man stealing a car, and tackles him, then hands him over to the police. A neighborhood busybody demands that Jack be fired, since he wasn’t defending himself from an attack, he was only intervening in a crime in progress, and the bylaws require that the guard be doing both before they can use force. Is she right?
On page 59 this author claims that the UMMOVIC Teams in 2003 encountered evasion and that UMMOVIC teams did not conduct surprise inspections and that Iraq had cleared the inspection sites beforehand.
This is ridiculously false.
Here’s what the UNMOVIC Chief said in February 2003.