White House Legal Beagles To Bush: Bombs Away, You Have Our OK!!

Great Debates
1

The sum total of presidential authority under the US Constitution to wage war:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; …”

Article II, Section 2.

Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=512&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020826/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_14
The sum total of Congressional authority under the US Constitution to wage war:

"*To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; …*"

Article I., Section 8.
Mix well with the War Powers Resolution, add in growing concern from Congressional members of Bush’s own party, sprinkle liberally with opinions from Congressional Democrats, and half-bake with the American People.

Does anyone see a possible confrontation between opposite ends of Pennsyvania Avenue with this? Haven’t we gone down this road before?

Notwithstanding Saddam’s reputation, real and imagined threats to the USA and all this saber-rattling spewing forth, but has Bush really made a legitmate case so far, for what surely is a military invasion of Iraq, a war and the potential repercussions beyond what war has “traditionally” been about in this post-9/11 terrorist world?

Will Bush get onside enough allies to “justify” his position? Will he really go at it alone in – deliberate words here - his own holy war?

It’s one thing to soften up the American resolve and prepare for war, but I get a distinct feeling – meaning no cite – that Bush is seeking a Tonkin Gulf to get the ball rolling if he doesn’t get the support he really needs. For me, it looks like Bush is gathering as much “justification” as he sees fit, regardless of any other support, be it from allies, the Congress, or even the American People, to take out Saddam.

2

You can always find somebody to tell you what you want to hear, especially if you’re the President.

When the Framers wrote the Constitution, I have no doubt that they would have defined the military invasion of another sovereign nation on the scale now being contemplated as full fledged war which must be voted on by the Congress. I do not believe that this action can be taken legally without such a vote. I do not believe that this action is authorized under the September 14, 2001 resolutions which approved the use of military force against the terrorists. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in that attack. If there was, Bush would be shouting it from the rooftops and everybody would get on board the war train. As it is, it’s like the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and we declared war on Argentina.

No matter what your opinion on a potential attack on Iraq, I urge everyone to write your Senators and Congressmen expressing your opinion on the matter and urging them to bring the matter to a vote.

3

From what I understand from reading up on that story, a big part of the justification for Bush’s lawyers’ recommendations stems from the fact that Iraq hasn’t complied with the stated terms at the end of the last war. Using that argument, it’s possible that this would be viewed as a continuation of the Gulf War rather than an entirely new conflict. Kinda like if Germany said, “Yeah, we surrender” after WWII, then still amassed weapons and talked about killing all Jews. In that case, we’d have been justified in going back into Germany and taking out the leaders who were perpetuating hostilities.

I don’t know how strong that aspect of the case is - it certainly would have been stronger 10 years ago, when the Gulf War was still fresh - but I think that’s a large part of the rationale.
Jeff

4

Oooh, somebody ought to tell Al Gonzales that Congress doesn’t like it when he advises the president to ignore them. Not a good way to butter up the senators who are going to have to confirm him when he gets that Supreme Court nod.

5

Bush lawyer’s tell him that he doesn’t need to ask Congress for permission.

But who told his lawyer’s that they were the final arbiter of the Constitution?

They can build an argument, they can make the claim but they don’t have final say.

Clinton’s lawyers told him that he hadn’t committed perjury, but that didn’t stop folks from arguing that he did.

6

Our Congress is made up of spineless wimps, is why.

The Pubbies dread the coming election. They don’t want to admit it, don’t even want to think about it, but keeping the “War on Terror” at the forefront of the American mind is their best hope of retaining power.

The Dumbocrats see the same situation, and live in fear of being accused of not “supporting our troops.”

Truth be known, all Our Churchill has to do is get something started, anything will do, an incident, real or imagined, is all it would take.

Because once it gets rolling, all they have to do is wrap themselves in Old Gory and bloviate patrioticly and the prize is theirs. With the possible exception of Barney Frank, I doubt there is a Congressman with enough guts to speak out.

Its not their shame, it is ours. We let them push our buttons, we let them install them. And, God forgive us, they will get away with it.