He didn’t *imply * a thing, he stated it outright, something *he * is capable of.
No, what you said there was no more than a bald assertion, with no support stated, and in complete contradiction to the any definition of the stated text, as we’ve all said.
Are you going to even try to support your silly claim, or can we take your continued refusal as an admission of what the rest of us can see, that you’re simply full of shit?
Unlike you, december didn’t use to *pretend * he’d answered questions, he just blew them off. He wouldn’t have tried to do something as pathetic as you just have.
That is your explanation for how you determined that the law really means 15 days per target, instead of what it actually says: "…for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. "??
A war doesn’t last 15 days, so this line in the law must mean 15 days per target??? What the hell…
Are you being obtuse on purpose, or is this really going that far over your head??
Where does this conclusion come from? Who said they are not subject to the War Powers Act?
I don’t want to, or support, giving the executive unlimied power. Where did you get that?
My only point, AGAIN: that, legally, the authorization of force resolutions the Congress passed were a decalarion of war within the meaning of 50 USC § 1811. That’s all. I’ve said nothing about anything else in your paragraph above.
Again, you’re creating arguments that I never made. I never said the president has unlimited emergency powers. Did I? So why would you try to claim I did? Is your actual argument so weak that the only way you feel you can win is to make up my arguments so you can then defeat them? Why would you do such a thing?
The War on Drugs does not, so far as I’m aware, come with a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use military force. Ditto for Johnson’s War on Poverty. The Cola Wars and the WWE are not functions of the government at all.
That is going to be very, very difficult to prove in court. I seriously doubt the SCOTUS would accept unrelated analogies like your concealed weapon attempt. For this to fly, you are going to have to cite precedent where “declaration of war” did not mean a specific act of Congress that unambiguously commences a state of war between the US and another sovereign nation.
Why? Analogies like that are the very essence of statutory interpretation, especially on issues of first impression. What’s wrong with that analogy?
If your view is correct, then Congress intended the President only to have wiretap authority when another sovereign state is involved in war with us, but NOT that authority when we still have large numbers of troops IN a foreign country, being shot at, but we are contending against an entity that doesn’t qualify as a sovereign nation? Same number of troops, same desert they’re deployed to, but Congress intended to draw that distinction?
Sorry, I don’t the SCOTUS will accept THAT argument.
I don’t buy it. A Pipe Wrench is not a weapon until it is used in an assault thus carrying one concealed does not constitute carrying a concealed weapon. A sword or gun is always a weapon and thus constitutes carrying a concealed weapon. Furthermore, what definition of “declaration of war” is there besides an act declaring that a state of war exists?
From what I can see you are the one making claims about interpetation in this statute different from what I would consider the default. Declaration of War has a great deal of history as a legal concept. I have cited many declarations of war and they all have the same specific language that a resoultion to authorize force does not have. Now, you are claiming that the writers of this law in this specific case decided to use a different definition of declaration of war than the one that has existed for centuries. What evidence do you have for this to be the case?
As for the 15 days, if there were a law that said “Fishing for trout shall only be legal for 15 calendar days following a declaration of open season by the Fish and Game Warden” how would you interpet that? Would you take it to mean that once the Fish and Game Warden declares open season I can fish whenever I please so long as my total time does not exceed 15 days? Or would you take it to mean that fishing for trout is only legal for the 15 days following the declaration by the Fish and Game Warden?
This is specific, unambiguous proof that the Iraq resolution is not consistent with definition (1) a declaration of war, but is explicitly defined as definition (2), a specific statutory authorization.
The linkage between the two is now ironclad, there is no longer any wiggle room. Will you now concede that there is no way to construe the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq as a “declaration of war”?
I just got a nice cite from the other thread: Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800), which acknowledges:
That case distinguishes between all sorts of armed conflict in law. But it clearly says that Congress created a state of war with France by “public declarations and open acts” yet Congress never actually declared war on France.
The resolution was not a declaration of war within the meaning of the War Powers resolution. I’ve only said this about fifty times.
It was a declaration of war within the meaning of 50 USC § 1811.
You linked the wrong things. You linked the Iraq resolution to the War Powers Resolution, and then tried to claim it proved something about §§ 1811. No, no, no.
You have provided no precedent for your unique definition of “declaration of war” as it appears in 1811. Bas v. Tingy states war may exist without a declaration; 1811 states it applies only under a declaration of war. Just as not all dogs are poodles, not all wars are declared. 1811 is limited to wars that are declared, and Iraq is not.
I don’t know how you think this supports your argument but it is in fact devestating to your argument. As your cite says Congress can create a state of war without declaring it. Wars in which Congress takes that route are certainly wars but they lack a declaration of war. These wars are undeclared wars or as that case says, imperfect wars, and do not satistfy the requirements of 1811.
§§ 1811 refers to a declared war, but never defines what that phrase means. Bas v Tingy shows that Congress did “through its acts and declarations” create war with France. But you cannot point to a Congressional resolution for the war with France that has your magic phrase in it. Yet it was through the acts and declarations of Congress that the state of war came to be. Did we “declare war” on France in the year 1798 or not? Yes, by the ordinary meaning of the war. Yes, by the meaning of the laws being interpreted in Bas. And yet Congress NEVER “declared war.” If the War Powers Resolution existed then, the “war” with France would have been merely an authorized use of force, NOT a “declared war.” Yet the Court found that for the purposes of laws governing the seizure of property from the enemy in times of declared war, THAT was a declared war.
In other words, the word “declaration” is not magical. Congress may declare a war, in ordinary meaning, without saying, “We declare war,” and that sort of declaration, while not meeting the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, certainly meets the ordinary, everyday meaning of “declared war” – the kind of meaning that’s called for in §§ 1811.
As Justice Moore said:
So Congress never passed a resolution that had the words “We declare war.” Yet the Court found that, for purposes of interpreting the words of general law, we were in a declared war.
In that example, there is no absurdity rendered by the conclusion that the legislature intended to create a single fifteen-day period for trout fishing.
It’s absurd, though, to conclude that Congress intended a war of any kind to be over in fifteen days, or intended to supply the President with authority for wiretaps only during the first fifteen days of a war that was going to last longer.
You are obviously saying, “Why does it matter if it’s absurd: the clear language of the law says something, so that’s that.” But - no.
Consider the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. US. At issue in that case was a law that said: “It shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to in any way assist or encourage the importation of any alien or any foreigners into the United States under contract or agreement to perform labor or service of any kind.” It was intended to cut off the hordes of immigrants that were a problem at the time.
The Church of the Holy Trinity offered a contract to a clergyman from England to serve as its pastor. They were charged with violation of the act. The Supreme Court ruled that although concedely the actions of the church violated the letter of the law, the law simply couldn’t mean what the letters said, because the result would be absurd: barring a Church from hiring a pastor flew in the face of what the Congress of a Christian nation would ever have intended to do. So even in the face of clear language from Congress, the Court ruled that such a result was absurd.
Its not absurd for Congress to give the President emergency powers at the beginning of a war. The beginning of a war may be an extremely hectic time and it may be impossible to set up the necessary judicial oversight for these wiretaps. It is reasonable to temporarily suspend judicial oversight in favor of effectively prosecuting the war in its early stages. It is also reasonable to require judicial oversight after a period time in which an effective mechanism for that oversight could be put in place.
No, that is not what the Justices said in Bas. What they said was that even though no state of war was declared by the actions of Congress the hostilities between the two nations constituted war. From the ruling:
Congress in this case did not declare war but it is true that there was a war going on between France and the USA. If 1811 had said “following a state of war” then Bas would support your argument. But 1811 does not, it says “following a declaration of war by congress.” Lest you think that advocating hostilities constitute a declaration of war Bas disagrees:
Bas recognizes that there may be a state of hostilities that do not rise to “perfect war” and that congress might intend to advocate hostilities but not declare war. The war in Afghanistan is not a perfect war as described in Bas nor did Congress intend it to be. It is possible for Congress to advocate war on someone with out declaring. That is what chose to do by passing the authorization of force and that is seperate from declaring war.
According to CNN TV this morning, there will be Congressional hearings early next week to examine the FISA laws, possible violations, and the question of extraordinary presidential powers. So far, John Dean. Chuck Hagel, Jonathan Alter, Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley,Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Lindsey Graham appear to be of the opinion that there were violations.
In an press conference, Alberto Gonzales said…
Q You have stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress who might say, we never –
Q That’s your interpretation. That isn’t Congress’ interpretation.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I’m just giving you the analysis –
[…]
Q If FISA didn’t work, why didn’t you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We’ve had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be – that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that – and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.
? ? ? Gonzales says it was okay to spy on Americans without authorization because the war resolution gave them that power. But when asked why they didn’t ask for specific congressional authorization, he says, well, Congress wouldn’t have given them that power. ? ? ?
P.S We are still waiting for an explanation about the “15 days”.