So when Clinton chose to construe “sexual relations” as only including vaginal intercourse, he was not committing perjury, right? If you’re going to give one President the benefit of the doubt on these sorts of things, you might as well give it to Presidents of the opposing party.
Correct. I don’t contend that the definition of sexual relations was a basis for perjury.
The acts that were the basis for perjury included his contact with Ms. Lewinsky’s breasts and genitalia, which the President himself conceded would fall within the definition of “sexual relations” as he understood it at the time.
So, are you just going to ignore the substantial difference between declarations of war and congressional authorization of force and the fact that the War Powers Act does not require the president to report to congress in event of a declaration of war?
I’m not ignoring them. I’m saying that “declaration of war,” as that term is used in 18 USC § 1811, is not a rigorous term of art is it is in the War Powers Resolution. In §§ 1811, the phrase has its ordinary dictionary meaning. If Congress had meant otherwise, they would have included it in the definitions section, or they could have simply said, “a declaration of war as defined in section xxx of the War Powers Act.” But they didn’t - they left it alone, showing that it didn’t have any special meaning as used in that section.
Even so, it doesn’t say 15 days per subject. It simply says 15 days.
Of course it doesn’t have special meaning. It means exactly what it says, “a declaration of war” not, as you would have us believe, “congressional authorization to use force.”
Why do you think that these are one in the same when the congressional authorization to use force is made in lines with an act that differentiates between declaration of war and congressional authoization to use force?
You know, I’ve noticed that when I completely address and rebut a point you’ve made (activist judges, the Clinton parallel) you never seem to acknowledge the point; you simply ignore it and move on to something else.
Why is that?
Because you’ve done so only in your own imagination, perhaps?
Because if Congress wanted to refer to the specific definition, they could have easily done so. It’s done all the time in law: there’s a definition section in most laws, or the law will refer to another section for the precise definition. When a law fails to do that, I argue that it’s the simple dictionary definition, not the phrase as it may be used elsewhere, that is meant.
Can you show me a place where declaration of war is defined in any other law?
How Clintonian of you, Bricker! So basically, the War on Terror and the Iraq War are official wars when you need them to be (when you want to give the executive unlimited power), and not official wars when you don’t need them to be (not subject to the War Powers Act). And even though the President declared the end of official hostilities in Iraq in May, 2003, the war-that-is-not-war there still continues to give the president unlimited emergency powers. Even though we are in firm control of Afghanistan and have replaced its government with a new elected one, we are still at war with…somebody…and that gives the president unlimited emergency powers to do whatever he likes. What about the War on Drugs? By your argument, couldn’t the president assume emergency powers to wiretap everyone in the United States to further his prosecution of that particular war-that-is-not-war? Did Johnson’s War on Poverty give him unlimited emergency powers? What about the long-raging Cola Wars? And since “RAW is WAR”, does Vince McMahon have unlimited executive powers, or would those powers fall to whoever is in possession of the Championship belt?
Consider your points officially acknowledged. Not to throw stones when I live in a glass house, but I’ve seen the same type of behavior from you in the past.
You mean like EXACTLY what you did with that response? Over 2 threads and countless people asking you about the 15 days, you won’t respond. And then he asks you again, and instead of answering you insult him??? Kind of like simply ignoring it and moving on to something else…
That was a typical december tactic, too.
Nope. But that just means that we should apply a dictionary definition. If Congress wanted a specific defintion, they would have written it in or referred to it.
I try my best to acknowledge points made. “Good point,” “Right you are,” or some such, before moving on. But if I haven’t, then I, too, apologize for the lack.
And to answer your question about the fifteen days: my post 289.
You mean to imply I’ve never answered that question?
I think I did, in post post 289.
Sorry to interrupt this ex officio meeting of the GD law review club 
but new revelations have been made re: spying issues.
Apparently the FBI has been spying on – er, sorry, has “expressed interest in” – certain U.S. social/political activist groups, ranging from PETA to a Catholic charity fighting hunger and poverty.
Apparently a Catholic charity’s alleged “semi-communist ideology” (whatever the fuck that means) is worth noting in an FBI file??? Have we been transported to 1955?
Gee, J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon would be proud. How long until we find out that the FBI had “discussed” their “interest” in various Democratic politicians’ campaign headquarters?
Interesting, so you contend that when we read the War Powers Act:
We should take (1), (2) and (3) to constitute legally the same thing? If not, on what basis do you rest the differening definitions of “declaration of war” between the War Powers Act and § 1811.
No. It means notwithstanding any other LAW, not “any other law except these others in this same chapter.” It means that §§ 1811 stands on its own, period, regardless of the provisions of any other law.
It’s not at all uncommon for a phrase to have a general meaning in law, but a specific meaning when used in one small section of law.
For example, a law may prohibit the carrying of a concealed weapon, and another law may prohibit assault with a weapon.
The list for the concealed weapon will typically be very precise. There is no list associated with the “assault” law; anything used in an assault may qualify as a weapon for the purposes of that law. Hitting someone with a pipe wrench would be a crime under the “assault with a weapon” law. But the “carrying a concealed weapon” law would not penalize someone for carrying a concealed pipe wrench.
So – (1), (2), and (3) in your example refer to three different things. But when that same phrase is used in §§ 1811, it has a more general meaning.