Reads: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
And is not legally binding.
Entirely subjective.
Never heard of this promise, what’s the source? It doesn’t comport with the large majority of U.S. military operations from 1776 to present.
It’s not accurate to describe a Congressional resolution as a contract or a binding agreement. For one thing, there are specific elements required for an agreement to be a legal contract:
Mutual assent, reached through offer and acceptance.
Not applicable to acts of Congress, which can be enacted without the acceptance of the president, and further, the President lacks the power to make offers of his own to Congress.
Consideration, something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor.
Not applicable to acts of Congress, the President has nothing to offer as consideration.
There are other elements, such as capacity, but acts of Congress fail both of the primary elements needed for a contract.
The President’s use of his authority, including excercising authorization to use military force, is in reality checked by the Supreme Court, and Congress’ ability to impeach. Everything else you speak of is a moral obligation, the only legal obligation in play is to not be impeached.
The reason the President shouldn’t be able to start wars at will is because that makes him a tyrant and the US an empire, not because of the inane “support our troops” principle. In fact, under the Constitution, there are no “troops” per se, only militias–standing armies are clearly prohibited.
In this case, though, Congress did authorize the war. Unless you want to engage in a semantic quibble about Congress not literally declaring war. But a rose is a rose is a rose…
[107th Congress **Public Law **243]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[[Page 1497]]
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]
**Public Law **107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
So if agreement is necessary for a bill to become a law, and therefore “constitutes a contract,” if a bill is enacted by overriding the Presidents veto, is the President then not morally obligated to uphold that “contract?”
Placing emphasis Only upon the “war” aspect of the JAUMF (Oct2002) when at the time UN Resolution 1441 was not passed until a month later, while placing no emphasis on the 'Peace" aspect of the JAUMF is disingenuous and dishonest. You have performed a contextomy on that law written by Congress and agreed to by the Administration when he signed it.
If it is called a LAW it is a LAW and it had to have AGREEMENT between two separate parties to become LAW then it is the same as any type of legal contract.
What is legally binding and what is not is open to interpretation by all us citizens as far as Bush being morally and publically obligated to exhaust all diplomatic means prior to determining that war was the only way to go.
As a U.S. citizen I say Bush was bound and obligated to exhaust all diplomatic means as the language of Public LAW 243 expressed.
You and others have decided Bush owes us nothing of the sort.
I disagree but I believe more citizens if asked would agree with me.
Your view is hardheaded for some reason and if I may say quite foolish.
Nope. Those aren’t “peace” aspects of the AUMF. It simply says that Congress supports Bush’s efforts to enforce UNSC resolutions and authorizes him to use force when he determines it is necessary. He is not only the Decider, but the Determinator.
If there ever were a case where Congress voted to start a war and the President Vetoed it, I’d sure like to be around to see that and then what happens next.
According the the Congressional Research service, from 1789 through 2004, only 106 of 1,484 regular presidential vetoes were overridden by Congress.
I wrote: “The JAUF(Oct2002) was the same as with any legal contract.
And in this particular case there was developed agreement between two bodies of government.
Wandering off into how the Separation of Powers in our government works is not part of the discussion. therfe was no veto over-ride.
Now do you believe that Bush exhausted all diplomatic means prior to ‘determining’ as he was given the authority to do, that the ONLY WAY to protect America’s security was to bomb, invade and kill a lot of people including 4584 or our beloved US Military members?
If you do not want to answer the question please just say so.
It has already been explained to you why this is not correct. Repeating it over and over again will not change that.
You are mistaken as to the text of the AUMF. It does not say that Bush must exhaust all diplomatic means first. It says (emphasis added):
In fact it expressly states that Bush might think there are other diplomatic course of action he might take, but that he has determined (as the Determinator) that they, alone, won’t accomplish the goal. That is very different than saying he must exhaust all diplomatic means first.
Now you are not being serios or discussing in good faith.
They specifically state “Diplomatic Means” and “THROUGH” the UN Security Council… NOT on his own.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Now you are not being serios or discussing in good faith.
They specifically state “Diplomatic Means” and “THROUGH” the UN Security Council… NOT on his own.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
Dude, the text simply said that “Congress supports…” what the president is doing with the UNSC, not that Congress requires the president to work only thought the UNSC.
It specifically gives him the authority to determine when continuing to do that will not be effective. End of story.
Dude, the text simply said that “Congress supports…” what the president is doing with the UNSC, not that Congress requires the president to work only though the UNSC. It specifically gives him the authority to determine when continuing to do that will not be effective. End of story. - John Mace 02-23-2013 03:16 PM.
And that is what I have been asking you since I got here. How can you accept that Bush ‘determined’ anything within the spirit of the JAUMF with integrity and honesty and with full consideration of the consequences of choosing war and bloodshed over peaceful efforts knowing what Bush did to kick the UN inspectors out, when nobody was dying, being bombed, killed or shot at checkpoints. Nobody was.
And you must know that according to Bush’s own and his own administration’s words prior to the vote for the JAUMF (Oct2002) that he was seeking to resolve the WMD issue with Iraq peacefully and through the UN.
Does Bush’s WORD as President of the United States of America mean nothing to you?
A sixth grader could figure out that when the JAUMF was being voted into LAW, there was a threat because there were no inspections for WMD going on in Iraq. He may have had them.
And that same sixth grader could figure out that in March 2003 there were 250 UN Inspectors in Iraq getting full cooperation from the Iraq regime and that has to mean the THREAT from Iraq was siginificantly REDUCED from October 2002 to March 2003 and … Yes, a peaceful outcome had a chance.
Bush obviously did not use the facts or the conditions or the truth to DETERMINE that he had to have his war right then and now in March 2003.
And again John+Mace I ask you to sincerly state that you are OK with that determination for war being made because Bush had no obligation to be REAL.
And you excuse him because a Republican controlled House of Representatives gave him the and a US Democratic Controlled Senate gave him the authority to choose war if Peace Efforts fail?
Bush could operate in his own la la land of neocon clownism and it is ok…
I thought it was a huge mistake and couldn’t wait to vote him out of office. As noted, I didn’t care if SH had WMDs or not. I did not consider him a threat to the US.
But, he had the authorization from Congress to execute the war. That is a fact. Forget sixth graders. A fourth grader should have known that if he was given the authority, he would use it.
“If it is called a LAW it is a LAW and it had to have AGREEMENT between two separate parties to become LAW then it is the same as any type of legal contract.” -Ntfldbw 02-23-2013 02:39 PM.
“It has already been explained to you why this is not correct. Repeating it over and over again will not change that.” - John Mace 02-23-2013 02:58 PM.
You may have repeated your opinions, however you have not cited anything that says what I wrote is not correct. I have cited the definition of what a contract is. You have cited nothing.