Quote:
Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites
I am cognizant of Article I Section 8 and I am cognizant of the 1973 "resolution" known as the War Powers Act. The War Powers act is a non binding "resolution" as is the nature of a "resolution". Many constitutional legal scholars believe that the "resolution" is not within the Constitutional powers of Congress and I would assume that is why it was passed as a resolution. Many constitutional scholars maintain that the Congress does not have the power to over ride Article II Section II of the constitution which designates the President to be the Commander in Chief of the military.
Maybe you can point out the "48 HOURS" that the "resolution" states the President must report to congress as I cannot seem to find it.
As for me being misinformed, maybe you should rethink that position.
|
In this case (I kinda made the logical jump since people were referring to Iraq in this thread) we already had troops involved with combat (no-fly zone, naval surveillance etc) and most scholars point to Sect 4.(a.)(3) which states :
"in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit
within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad"
I also would disagree that "most" legal scholars agree about the resolution not being within the Congress' authority - as a matter of fact just about every legal authority expert that spoke out during the Vietnam war held the exact opposite position and were the leading cause for Congress even taking a look at limiting the Presidential abuses of his power in 1973 - of course most of the abuses had occured over the timeframe of Truman, Johnson and Nixon so Congress (at least the published words that were being put out in the Wash Post etc back then) felt a need to rein in what they saw as an abuse and created a joint resolution between both the Senate and House.
I also would disagree that the Constitution (just because it makes the president the head of the military - because it was accepted in George Washingtons era that he actually already was the general of the Army) intended to have a conflict and does not take away from what the framers of the Constitution realized they needed in their words as a check/balance so they added in the Art 1 Sect 8 just to make sure that a President didnt become a dictator by declaring wars without the backing of the congress. Kinda makes sense if you ask me but then Im just an old man.
I think that most of what you would find these days supporting the idea that the President outranks any of the other two branches of government - are those that are fully to blame for the position the US is in right now and they definitely need to be reined in - of course I know I wont be around to see any of it happen but hopefully you younger folks will see what America is supposed to look like - but Im afraid its going to take pretty damn close to another revolution to see it
I think our only disagreement here though is we take two different sides on an issue that has been debated for the last 50 years