US Congress Wants To Have A Say In Decision On Iraq

[**DONOTDELETE**]

DJ US Congress Wants To Have A Say In Decision On Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP)--President Bush has promised to consult Congress before waging war in Iraq. He hasn't said whether he will explicitly ask Congress' approval to dispatch troops to depose Saddam, the Iraqi president.

As far as the White House is concerned, Bush has the legal authority he needs: a congressional vote in 1991 that authorized his father to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions by using military force to reverse Iraq's annexation of Kuwait. Objectors say the resolutions expired after a six-week air war and four days of ground operations restored Kuwaitis' control of their country on Feb. 28, 1991.

The White House also has a congressional resolution approved last year supporting "necessary and appropriate force" as a response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

These arguments may not satisfy Congress, which is getting ready to hold hearings on Iraq policy.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is drawing a line in the sand. "The administration should not expect to commit American troops to war with a wink and a nod to Congress," he said last week.

"There should be a full debate and a vote," Leahy said. "That is what the Constitution prescribes, and that is what the American people expect."

History shows the American people rarely have got what Leahy says they are entitled to -a vote in Congress on a declaration of war before their president used force abroad.
(END) DOW JONES NEWS 09-04-02 01:26 AM

=====
I do not have a reference for this other than as indicated because if is part of the investment news furnished to me.
======

Q. "That is what the Constitution prescribes, and that is what the American people expect."

2A or one of you constitutionalist is this what the constitution prescribes or provides
a lot of difference.

Q. "History shows the American people rarely have got what Leahy says they are entitled to -a vote in Congress on a declaration of war before their president used force abroad."

I am not a lawyer but this to me has become accepted practice therefore a legal precedence?????

[Warlady]

GW announced this morning that he will seek Congressional approval before he takes action against Saddam Hussein.

[EagleTed]

Congress didn't have the guts to declare war after 9/11, what makes anyone think they would now?

They're a bunch of gutless wonders who feel left out. So now GW will have to hold their hands to make them feel better.

[EagleTed]

What's your point, Carl?

You would support the president doing nothing until Congress grows a set of gonads?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
GW announced this morning that he will seek Congressional approval before he takes action against Saddam Hussein.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knowed you got dat right, heared it myhself.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carl:
Article 1, Section 8.

Only Congress can:
"<u>To declare war</u>, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

The only Legal Precedence the Executive, Legislative and Judciary can use is the Constitution of the United States of America.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think not. If the only thng permitted in this coutry is what is specifically annotated in the Constitution, I don't think I would want to live here and you probably would not either. The evolution of man has changed even the difference between my generation, the generation of my children and the generation of my Grand Childeren and Great GrandChild.

In my opinion the Constitution is a wonderful document, written by men of extreme care and knowledge for their generation. Howeve, I think the Constitution should remain our basic foundation for law but updated according the society when necessary.

[Warlady]

Congress gave him the authority on 9-14-01. Read the resolution they passed.

[EagleTed]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carl:
What, you only support them following the Constitution when it suites your purposes?

I would support the President and the Congress following the Constitution, period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I doubt it. But, be that as it may. You damn right I support the president bringing hell on earth to the people who attacked us. And if Congress doesn't have the guts to do it's Constitutional duty because it's composed of compost, screw 'em.

[Warlady]

What Ted said.

[Warlady]

Oh good grief Carl. Everytime someone disagrees with you you call them a leftist. Can't you rise above that? GW Bush has the authority and obligation to protect our nation from enemies foreign and domestic and Congress has given him that authority as well as the electorate. I'm sorry you can't grasp the importance and seriousness of his job. Declaring war gives the President dictatorial powers. Do you really want that?

[Lighthouse_MIDI]

Ditto's to what Warlady has said. One might argue whether or not the 1991 congressional approval is still valid but the congressional resolution approved last year supporting "necessary and appropriate force" as a response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks is more than sufficient to back up an attack in Iraq. I am surprised by G.W.'s willingness to get additional approval and I think the demonrats are shell shocked by it. images/icons/grin.gif
Now they have to look at the facts and make a decision instead of whining their babble.
images/icons/wink.gif - Lighthouse

[oracle]

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a formal declaration of war. The Constitution grants the Congress to declare war; that's all that it says about it. It is up to Congress to decide what form that declaration takes.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carl:
And the majority of the socialist/communist agrees with you whole heartedly! They would like nothing better than to sweep the Constitution under the rug and make the laws up as they go with no regard for our freedoms.

I guess they can count upon your support in their endeavors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
======================

Originally posted by BigJohn68:
I think not. If the only thng permitted in this coutry is what is specifically annotated in the origional Constitution, I don't think I would want to live here and you probably would not either. The evolution of man has changed even the difference between my generation, the generation of my children and the generation of my Grand Childeren and Great GrandChild.

In my opinion the Constitution is a wonderful document, written by men of extreme care and knowledge for their generation. Howeve, I think the Constitution should remain our basic foundation for law but updated according the society when necessary.


Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Slinging Mud gets you dirty not me.

Your reasoning is greener than a persimmon and puckers twice as much.

Every person should get a high school education, even if they already know everything.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carl:
So BigJohn68,

Tell us, what exactly is in the Constitution that would make you not want to live here?

Oh and where, pray tell, was any mud slung?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently you have not read too many of my post or you would know that I support the United States right or wrong and make no excuses about it.

There has never been anything in the constitution that would make me want to move, because there have been amendments that added or took away personal rights to confirm to today's society. Without those Amendments I would have to determine whether I wanted to continue to live here. Perhaps I used the wrong terminology by referring to precedents established then becomming law.

While your statement is certainly true that the President nor the Congress can change the constitution because an amendment must be ratified by the States and thus the People. I believe in your discussion like many others you were Knit Picking what others were saying in order to keep a heated discussion. I am not innocent I have also done that.

This is the greatest Nation in the World and I devoted a large portion of my life to try and see that it remains great.

One of the most used freedoms, withoug realization, IMHO is the right to bitch and complain about the Government or another person without retallitation.

[EagleTed]

Carl, I respect your deep respect for our Constitution. I do, however, think that you're missing out on the whole point of the Constitution. It is an instrument of freedom and protector of our liberty.

If Congress chooses to ignore or decline to do it's Constitutonal duty, we shouldn't allow it's inaction and collective ego to threaten our liberty.

In short, your respect for our liberty should outweigh your concerns for our Constitution. The Constitution is in peril, but not from Bush's actions against the enemies of our liberty. That started a long, long time before he was sworn in.

[EagleTed]

Well said, Big John.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigJohn68:
I think not. If the only thng permitted in this coutry is what is specifically annotated in the Constitution, I don't think I would want to live here and you probably would not either. The evolution of man has changed even the difference between my generation, the generation of my children and the generation of my Grand Childeren and Great GrandChild.

In my opinion the Constitution is a wonderful document, written by men of extreme care and knowledge for their generation. Howeve, I think the Constitution should remain our basic foundation for law but updated according the society when necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the Constitution provides for that updating through the ammendment process, NOT through liberal justices reinterpreting what the founders intended and stretching the constitution to grant Human derived rights onto specific groups of people.

I for one would LOVE to live here with the Government adhering STRICTLY to the Constitution.

Think of it;

No IRS, DEA, HHS, DOE(energy OR education) no Welfare, no Social security.

My taxes would be 5% of what they are now!

And governmental regulations would be 0.01% of what they are now!

[EagleTed]

Again, Carl, we have to agree to disagree. I see little threat to our liberty from the actions taken by Congress or our president.

The biggest threat to our liberty is the folks who are teaching their children to hate America, hate Israel, hate freedom of religion, hate everything western culture has built.

[Warlady]

Excellent post Ted. And very true.

[EagleTed]

I agree, Carl, that the Saudis are our enemy (I hope justaguy isn't reading this, LOL).

But, now who's engaged in unreality? The chances of us declaring war on Saudi Arabia in the near future is slim and none.

[Warlady]

Is there some evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia declared war on the US? I agree they are the enemy but I don't think the Saudi military attacked us on 911. Unless you know something I don't. Some of the hijackers were from Egypt too. Should we declare war on Egypt as well?

[Warlady]

Carl I'm agreeing with you that Saudi Arabia is our enemy. I just don't see us declaring war on them...yet. At least not overtly. Consider that GW is working with Russia, Mexico and others to get other sources of oil.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carl:
EagleTed,

I would think those of us who see the true face of our enemy are the ones engaged in reality. I have no idea what hell Congress and the President are engaged in.

Warlady,

How odd, you applaud EagleTed for this;
"The biggest threat to our liberty is the folks who are teaching their children to hate America, hate Israel, hate freedom of religion, hate everything western culture has built."
which Saudi Arabia is, and has been, engaged in.

Not to mention their proven financing of terrorist activity plus their direct relationship with the Wahaabe (whatever) sect of radical Islam which is instigating the majority of this Jihad crap, giving them aid and succor and the fact that the majority of the hijacker/murderers are Saudi citizens and you have to ask??

There is no doubt in my mind, and the consensus is growing, that Saudi Arabia is, if not directly involved, complicit in what occurred on 9/11. Even more so than Ben Ladan (whatever) who is also a Saudi Native.

There are plenty of wars that were fought, with the blessings of governments, by soldiers who did not wear a uniform.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On this Carll, I ahve to agree with you, but what I think Ted was talking about, is the liberal Education establishment in this country teaching our young that America is evil. and we achieve nothing but oppression and subjugation.

[Warlady]

They'll get theirs Carl. They've been feeding the gators in the hopes that they will eat them last. The clock is ticking and the gators are hongry.