U.S. Judge Rejects Legal Bid to Block Iraq War

[Chris]

U.S. Judge Rejects Legal Bid to Block Iraq War (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JNM5NXMXCUPVACRBAELCF EY?type=topNews&storyID=2278330)

Mon February 24, 2003 12:53 PM ET
BOSTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday rejected a legal bid by a group of U.S. soldiers and some members of the U.S. Congress to keep President Bush from ordering an invasion of Iraq without formal congressional approval, saying the court had no business getting involved at this stage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that a federal court can judge the war policies of political branches of government only when actions taken by Congress and the president are in conflict -- a situation that does not exist today.

The civil lawsuit, brought by three members of the military, six parents of U.S. troops and six members of Congress, sought an injunction to stop potential U.S. military action on the grounds that only Congress has the right to declare war.

[Lopeover]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif Yeah!

[Warlady]

The Judge is correct. Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize use of force. The lawsuit was frivilous. Those who brought it should be made to pay court costs. At least Bush gave Congress the opportunity to authorize it. Clinton didn't even bother asking them when he bombed Baghdad in 98 during the impeachment trial.

[Dash_Riprock]

I still want to know the names of the three sniveling coward members of the military who participated in the suit. That information has never been revealed.

[Warlady]

I would think it would be a matter of public record.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

There must be a liberal judge somewhere who would rule that an war against Iraq is illegal.

[Greymon]

Those libs never give up trying, do they?

[Warlady]

Yeah. They're like the energizer bunny.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I guess that means we are already at war. What happens if Bush doesn't order an invasion? No war when war has been declared? Would that mean Bush is guilty of dereliction of duty if he doesn't order the invasion? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[RyteWynger]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris quoted Reuters:

<b style="font-size:11pt">U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that <u style="color:red">a federal court can judge the war policies of political branches</u> of government only when actions taken by Congress and the president are in conflict -- a situation that does not exist today.[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

Imbecile. Waging war is the prerogative of the Executive. The Legislature and the Judiciary get no veto. They are incompetent to judge or to second-guess the Executive's war aims.

[ QUOTE ]
"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"

-- Art. II Sec.2, U.S. Constitution

[/ QUOTE ]

Please note that this clause says nothing about the securing the consent -- or even the acquiescence -- of the other two branches. The President is the Boss. Period.

[MaximumSam]

Imbecile. Waging war is the prerogative of the Executive. The Legislature and the Judiciary get no veto. They are incompetent to judge or to second-guess the Executive's war aims.

Please note that this clause says nothing about the securing the consent -- or even the acquiescence -- of the other two branches. The President is the Boss. Period.

Well, not really. Section 8 of Article II says Congress has the power:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

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

Obviously, Congress isn't quite a lame duck when it comes to the armed forces. Therefore, the judge is most likely correct in saying the judiciary should only step in when a conflict arises, so as to determine who has the power to do what. Of course, a good argument can be made that the president cannot wage war at all, and cannot act in any capacity to wage war, unless Congress first declares war and calls him into service for the war. Regardless, the judge is not an imbecile.

[Warlady]

I don't believe the Judge an imbecile either. He made a good ruling.

[Timberwolf]

You need to study up on your Constitutional stuff RW. The Executive can only wage war with the blessings of the Legislative...should conflict arise, the Judiciary steps in to clarify the intent of the Constitution. THAT is HOW our system works...capice??

RW, the reason that there is to be a formal declaration of war is that the declaration is Congress agreeing to FUND the war. Unless Congress funds it, the President cannot wage it.

What you are saying, RW is that you wouldn't mind it at all if we were ruled by a dictator.

[RyteWynger]

The criticisms of my earlier post were:

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, not really. Section 8 of Article II [sic] says Congress has the power:
[there followed a transcription of Art I, Sec. 8]"

-- Maximum Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is all well and good, Sam, but nothing in Art. I grants Congress leave to interfere with the Executive's deployment of the armed forces.
BTW, it's Article I that describes the Legislature. Article II describes the Executive. There is no Section 8 of Article II! Precision precludes error.

[ QUOTE ]
Shortly thereafter, Warlady opined:
"I don't believe the Judge an imbecile either. He made a good ruling."

[/ QUOTE ]

In dismissing the foolishness of the loons? Yes. In asserting for the Judicary the authority to oversee the war aims of the Executive? Not so good.

[ QUOTE ]
[i]Then, TimberWolf offered his thoughts:
"You need to study up on your Constitutional stuff RW. The Executive can only wage war with the blessings of the Legislative...should conflict arise, the Judiciary steps in to clarify the intent of the Constitution. THAT is HOW our system works...capice??"

[/ QUOTE ]

The Commander-in-Chief has -- as I've said before -- unqualified, uncontested authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States in whatever numbers, assigned whatever missions, to whatever parts of the world he decides is necessary. Nobody gets a veto.

[ QUOTE ]
TimberWolf continued:
"RW, the reason that there is to be a formal declaration of war is that the declaration is Congress agreeing to FUND the war. Unless Congress funds it, the President cannot wage it."

[/ QUOTE ]

Once force is engaged, Congressional support will be forthcoming. Woe unto the legislator who votes to withhold support from American forces in harm's way.

[ QUOTE ]
Concluding on a low note, TimberWolf slandered:
"What you are saying, RW is that you wouldn't mind it at all if we were ruled by a dictator."

[/ QUOTE ]

What I am saying is that the Constitution is blissfully unconcerned with what I or you or anyone else minds or doesn't mind. It goes merrily on being the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing [among other things] that the President of the United States will be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the Supreme Commander of Commanders. The Boss.

No matter who doesn't like it.

As for your concerns about the rise of an American Caesar or Alexandar, the ultimate sanction is, of course, Impeachment and removal from office. It's deliberately difficult to accomplish. But, if a President really asks for it...

[MaximumSam]

Which is all well and good, Sam, but nothing in Art. I grants Congress leave to interfere with the Executive's deployment of the armed forces.
BTW, it's Article I that describes the Legislature. Article II describes the Executive. There is no Section 8 of Article II! Precision precludes error.

Oh, you are trying to hard to read absolutes into a very flexible document. The Constitution, in Article II, clearly says that the president acts as commander in chief 'when called.' Of course, what does it mean to be called? Is it his election? Is it an act of Congress? Has it already happened? Can he be recalled? Moreover, Congress can ratify treaties, regulate commerce with foreign nations, raise and support the armed forces, make rules regarding the armed forces, etc., but has zero power in how they are used? This is somewhat implausible. Can the president assign the armed forces to attack Congress without any input from them? The Air Force isn't even mentioned in the Constitution - does the president have any authority whatsoever over the Air Force besides what Congress gives him?

As hopefully you see, your argument leads to absurd results. While you are very correct that Congress is not equipped to conduct war in terms of the deployment strategic decisions, it is clearly incorrect to say Congress has no power whatsoever against the decisions of the president. Congress has a very large role when it comes to the armed forces, and clearly judicial oversite may be needed whenever these roles butt up against each other. A Congress trying to establish trade with a country will certainly butt up against a president wanting to wage war with a country. Who wins? Difficult to say, although there certainly isn't a clear answer in all circumstances.

The Commander-in-Chief has -- as I've said before -- unqualified, uncontested authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States in whatever numbers, assigned whatever missions, to whatever parts of the world he decides is necessary. Nobody gets a veto.

If the President tries to attack Hawaii, someone will probably get a veto.

Once force is engaged, Congressional support will be forthcoming. Woe unto the legislator who votes to withhold support from American forces in harm's way.

This is totally irrelevant to the Constitutional process.

[RyteWynger]

[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam said:

Oh, you are trying to hard to read absolutes into a very flexible document. The Constitution, in Article II, clearly says that the president acts as commander in chief 'when called.'

[/ QUOTE ]

It clearly says that, eh? I think you're cutting-and-pasting things together to make a Constitution of your very own.

[ QUOTE ]
Article II, Section 2 says [in part]:
"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"

[/ QUOTE ]

The "when called" business refers to the State Militias being called into the service of the United States. Read it again... you'll see.

[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam continued:
Moreover, Congress can ratify treaties, regulate commerce with foreign nations, raise and support the armed forces, make rules regarding the armed forces, etc., but has zero power in how they are used?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct. The Congress has absolutely no power whatsoever to direct the deployment of the armed forces. Command of the armed forces is entrusted to the Executive. Period.

[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam continued further:
This is somewhat implausible. Can the president assign the armed forces to attack Congress without any input from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Such a command would be disobeyed. Every member of the Armed Forces swears an oath: "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." This oath comes before and takes priority over the subsequent pledge to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and of the officers appointed over me." Obeying an order from the President to "attack" Congress would be instantly recognized -- by even the greenest new recruit -- as inconsistent with the oath.


[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam continued further:
The Air Force isn't even mentioned in the Constitution - does the president have any authority whatsoever over the Air Force besides what Congress gives him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that if the Framers had forseen the invention of the airplane, they certainly would have included a reference to air force in Art II, Sec. 2.

[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam continued still further:
As hopefully you see, your argument leads to absurd results. While you are very correct that Congress is not equipped to conduct war in terms of the deployment strategic decisions, it is clearly incorrect to say Congress has no power whatsoever against the decisions of the president. Congress has a very large role when it comes to the armed forces, and clearly judicial oversite may be needed whenever these roles butt up against each other. A Congress trying to establish trade with a country will certainly butt up against a president wanting to wage war with a country. Who wins? Difficult to say, although there certainly isn't a clear answer in all circumstances.

The Commander-in-Chief has -- as I've said before -- unqualified, uncontested authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States in whatever numbers, assigned whatever missions, to whatever parts of the world he decides is necessary. Nobody gets a veto.

If the President tries to attack Hawaii, someone will probably get a veto.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the President were to attack Hawaii, or the Congress or Mars, I think that Section 4 of the 25th Amendment might more useful than a veto...

[ QUOTE ]
Amendment XXV, Section 4 says:
"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

[/ QUOTE ]

[MaximumSam]

The "when called" business refers to the State Militias being called into the service of the United States. Read it again... you'll see.

You would think it was tha simple. But phrase construction has been debated in every single law that ever has been questionable in any way, and it is here, as well. Does it refer only to militias, or the militias and the armies, or the president? Do a whole set of different laws apply for the militias? Or does the Navy and Army have to be called by Congress, as well (especially since the armed forces have a much greater place in our government) Hopefully, you are beginning to tell how deep the Constitution can actually be, and why the judge, if anything, was not an imbecile.

I have no doubt that if the Framers had forseen the invention of the airplane, they certainly would have included a reference to air force in Art II, Sec. 2.

As you have already pointed out, your doubts, wants, and needs are totally irrelevant to what the Constitution actually says, and it doesn't actually say anything about the air force.

If the President were to attack Hawaii, or the Congress or Mars, I think that Section 4 of the 25th Amendment might more useful than a veto...

Possibly. Or they could pass a law saying not to attack Hawaii, since war with Hawaii would interfere commerce with Hawaii. And since regulating commerce between the states is clearly within the powers of Congress, the judiciary would have to settle the dispute. Or at least this is how it would have to be before the 25th Amendment came to be. Of course, you are also stretching the 25th to its breaking point, since attacking Hawaii doesn't mean you are unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. In any case, saying the only power Congress has when the army is deployed is to cast out the president is extreme and absurd. If they were really worried about it, they could just call back any armed forces deployed, so as to provide for the common defense.

[RyteWynger]

<b style="font-size:16pt">futility[/b]
n.

1. The quality of having no useful result; uselessness.
2. Lack of importance or purpose; frivolousness.
3. A futile act.
4. Trying to reason with one -- i.e. MaximumSam -- impervious to it.

[MaximumSam]

Well, really, your futility is trying to argue against me when you have an indefensible position. I can think of many ways Congress can 'veto' the president in his deployment of the armed forces. They can pass a law saying no money can be spent on war in Iraq. They can literally direct the forces somewhere else. They can use their commerce power. Etc., etc., etc. (Besides just passing a resolution saying we will not go to war). All would be based on some power afforded to them by the Constitution, and in all cases, if the president contested it, the court would eventually settle the dispute. Lord knows why you think this is a terrible idea, or why you think the Constitution demands otherwise, but now you know.

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
RyteWynger said:
[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam said:

Oh, you are trying to hard to read absolutes into a very flexible document. The Constitution, in Article II, clearly says that the president acts as commander in chief 'when called.'

[/ QUOTE ]

It clearly says that, eh? I think you're cutting-and-pasting things together to make a Constitution of your very own.

[ QUOTE ]
Article II, Section 2 says [in part]:
"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"

[/ QUOTE ]

The "when called" business refers to the State Militias being called into the service of the United States. Read it again... you'll see.


[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me that you are both wrong. What it's saying is the the President is the CIC of the US Army, the US Navy, and the State Militias, when they are called into service of the US. The President can call them, and so can the Congress.

As for the Air Force, it's only logical that they would have fallen under the same catagory as the Army and Navy if it was ever thought that an air forces was possible at the time the Constitution was written. As it is, there is a provision for such things. The last clause in Art.I, sec. 8. It would definitely be necessary and proper to make laws that included the Air Force in the same catagory as the Army and Navy when it came to the constitutional powers delegated to the President and Congress respectively.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

RyteWynger - [ QUOTE ]
The Commander-in-Chief has -- as I've said before -- unqualified, uncontested authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States in whatever numbers, assigned whatever missions, to whatever parts of the world he decides is necessary. Nobody gets a veto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, deployment requires funding and that's the job of Congress. The President becomes CinC once Congress declares war, until then, regulating the military is also the job of Congress. I don't see anything in the Constitution about an executive power to deploy any military forces without congressional approval (but then again, I've temporarily misplaced my copy of the document). Perhaps you can find this executive power and post it here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Maybe this is what you meant:

[ QUOTE ]
Article II, Section 2 says [in part]:
"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"

[/ QUOTE ]

The part, "when called" refers to when Congress calls upon these branches of the military into service - war, with a declaration of war. And notice how it says the President "shall be" CinC once these military branches are called upon by Congress? It doesn't say the President is CinC at all times regardless of war or peace.

[ QUOTE ]
Once force is engaged, Congressional support will be forthcoming. Woe unto the legislator who votes to withhold support from American forces in harm's way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a good reason to believe the Framers would not have allowed the executive to pressure Congress into wars by deploying troops into warzones for the purpose of instigating a war.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Btw, Ryte, the judge didn't say the judiciary can get involved with the conduct of the war policies of the President, but only when there are conflicts between the executive and legislative branches.

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that a federal court can judge the war policies of political branches of government only when actions taken by Congress and the president are in conflict -- a situation that does not exist today.

[DesertFox]

Chris got it right.

[MaximumSam]

I don't know what is right, I haven't read much about it. But I do know that saying the legislature has no power when the president deploys troops is wrong.

[DesertFox]

Don't know anyone who says the legislature has no power in that circumstance, Sam.

[MaximumSam]

That's exactly what RW said, DF.

[RyteWynger]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris said:
Seems to me that you are both wrong. What it's saying is the the President is the CIC of the US Army, the US Navy, and the State Militias, when they are called into service of the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which strikes me as indistinguishable from what I wrote, namely:

[ QUOTE ]
RyteWynger wrote, in response to Sam's gibberings:
It clearly says that, eh? I think you're cutting-and-pasting things together to make a Constitution of your very own.

[ QUOTE ]
Article II, Section 2 says [in part]:
"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"

[/ QUOTE ]

The "when called" business refers to the <b style="font-size:12pt; color:red">State Militias being called into the service of the United States.[/b] Read it again... you'll see.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read it again... you'll see

[RyteWynger]

[ QUOTE ]
Analog Kid said:
RyteWynger - [ QUOTE ]
The Commander-in-Chief has -- as I've said before -- unqualified, uncontested authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States in whatever numbers, assigned whatever missions, to whatever parts of the world he decides is necessary. Nobody gets a veto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, deployment requires funding and that's the job of Congress. The President becomes CinC once Congress declares war, until then, regulating the military is also the job of Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

My dear Analog Kid, you are clearly mad or illiterate or both. The President's authority as Commander-in-Chief is not conditioned upon a declaration of war. I served in the regular army from 1983 to 1987, and I can assure you that, despite the complete absence of any declared wars during that period, President Reagan absolutely was the Commander-in-Chief

[ QUOTE ]
Analog Kid continued:
The part, "when called" refers to when Congress calls upon these branches of the military into service - war, with a declaration of war. And notice how it says the President "shall be" CinC once these military branches are called upon by Congress? It doesn't say the President is CinC at all times regardless of war or peace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seldom right and wrong again. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, are perpetually in the service of the United States. <b style="font-size:12pt;color:red">That's a big part of the reason why they're referred to as "the Armed Forces of the United States."[/b]

The Armed Forces being at all times in the service of the United States, the President is at all times their Commander-in-Chief.

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght?

[RyteWynger]

[ QUOTE ]
Analog Kid said:
Btw, Ryte, the judge didn't say the judiciary can get involved with the conduct of the war policies of the President, but only when there are conflicts between the executive and legislative branches.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many crackpot dissent-o-crats does it take to open the door to Judicial meddling, I wonder? Just one? Or do they have to form a committee?

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
RyteWynger said:
[ QUOTE ]
Chris said:
Seems to me that you are both wrong. What it's saying is the the President is the CIC of the US Army, the US Navy, and the State Militias, when they are called into service of the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which strikes me as indistinguishable from what I wrote, namely:

[ QUOTE ]
RyteWynger wrote, in response to Sam's gibberings:
It clearly says that, eh? I think you're cutting-and-pasting things together to make a Constitution of your very own.

[ QUOTE ]
Article II, Section 2 says [in part]:
"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"

[/ QUOTE ]

The "when called" business refers to the <b style="font-size:12pt; color:red">State Militias being called into the service of the United States.[/b] Read it again... you'll see.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read it again... you'll see



[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you only said the "State Militias being called into the service of the United States". You omit the Army and Navy.

It reads as such -
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States<font color="red">,</font> when called into the actual Service of the United States."

If they were actually trying to say that he was CIC of the Army and Navy (all the time), and CIC of the militia only when it was called into service, then the founders would have omitted the comma I highlighted.

The way it is phrased says that he is CIC of them all when they are called into service. The Congress maintains the Army and Navy in the meantime, and the states their militias.

I agree that in this day and age, that they are in service of the US all the time though. The way I see it, just one military base or embassy being located outside of our country makes that so.

[Venus]

What Carl said in his post just above.

Good point about the reading of the phrasings.

[RyteWynger]

The correct answer: Never!

Are there any other veterans in the house?? Can I get a little help setting these ill-informed civilians straight.

The logic and sarcasm don't seem to be working... and they're all I've got.

[Dash_Riprock]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any other veterans in the house?? Can I get a little help setting these ill-informed civilians straight.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was career Air Force. What do you want to know?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey rytwinger and Dash.....This civilian says thanks for serving my country!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon44.gif

[MaximumSam]

Logic and sarcasm usually fail when you don't have a complete grasp of the facts.


As a general proposition, the conduct of this country's foreign relations involve political issues that the Constitution commits for resolution to the political branches of government--the Executive and Legislative. Absent a clear abdication of this constitutional responsibility by the political branches, the judiciary has no role to play. For example, should it become apparent that the political branches, themselves, are clearly and resolutely in opposition as to the military policy to be followed by the United States, then the situation would have gone beyond that of a political question and would pose a serious constitutional issue requiring resolution by the judicial branch. And so, a federal court may judge the war policies of the political branches only when the actions taken by Congress and those taken by the Executive manifest clear, resolute conflict.
Each of the political branches has responsibilities and prerogatives with respect to war policy. For example, the Constitution grants to Congress the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy. The President is made the commander-and-chief of the armed forces.
Case law makes clear that Congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not the United States will engage in war. Congressional ratification for the continuation of undeclared war activity may be found even though there has not been a formal declaration of approval. The manner and form of ratification is up to Congress, and the courts have no power to second guess the wisdom or form of such approval. The fact that Congress and the President may appear to be at odds from day to day concerning the conduct of military affairs does not necessarily add up to resolute conflict between the political branches.
Dispute, debate, and disagreement are the prerogative of the political branches. The controlling issue for determining this court's jurisdiction, therefore, is whether such dispute and disagreement has reached the point of clear and resolute conflict that would warrant judicial intervention.
Relevant to that inquiry in this case is the October Congressional Resolution concerning Iraq. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution cannot be interpreted as congressional action giving the President the power to make war with Iraq. But, whatever the merits of that argument, it is clear that Congress has not acted to bind the President with respect to possible military activity in Iraq. And indeed, the President, for his part, has not irrevocably committed our armed forces to military conflict in Iraq. There is, therefore, a day to day fluidity in the situation that does not amount to resolute conflict between the branches--but that does argue against an uninformed judicial intervention.


----Doe v. Bush

...should it be apparent that the political branches themselves are clearly and resolutely in opposition as to the military policy to be followed by the United States, such a conflict could no longer be regarded as a political question, but would rise to the posture of a serious constitutional issue requiring resolution by the judicial branch.


----Drinan v. Nixon (1973)

Of course, when Congress resolved to stop the bombing in Cambodia, little did they know they had no constitutional authority (despite what the Constitution says).

[RyteWynger]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris said:
I see that you only said the "State Militias being called into the service of the United States". You omit the Army and Navy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Armed Forces of the United States, being already in the Their service, can hardly be called into that service.

[ QUOTE ]
Chris continued:
It reads as such -
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States<font color="red">,</font> when called into the actual Service of the United States."

If they were actually trying to say that he was CIC of the Army and Navy (all the time), and CIC of the militia only when it was called into service, then the founders would have omitted the comma I highlighted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You attach too much significance to a grammatically inconsequential punctuation mark. The standing Armed Forces, as opposed to the State Militia, are already in the service of the United States, and -- for that reason -- can hardly be "called into" that service. The distinction that you and Analog Kid are trying to make is specious. The presence/absence of your special comma has no effect on the meaning of the clause.

[ QUOTE ]
Chris continued further:
The way it is phrased says that he is CIC of them all when they are called into service.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't [or, if you prefer: No<font color="red">,</font> it doesn't].


[ QUOTE ]
Chris concluded:
The Congress maintains the Army and Navy in the meantime, and the states their militias.

I agree that in this day and age, that they are in service of the US all the time [sic -- you omitted a comma] though. The way I see it, just one military base or embassy being located outside of our country makes that so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maintaining the Armed Forces in not commanding them.

Merciful Heaven!! How could I have missed this:

[ QUOTE ]
Chris continued further:
The way I see it, just one military base <font color="red">or embassy</font> being located outside of our country makes that so.

[/ QUOTE ]

All U.S. embassies are located outside of the United States. Countries don't dispatch ambassadors to their own soil! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rotflmbo.gif

[MaximumSam]

The fact that the Resolution to use Force is not a Declaration of War and is "Conditional", binds the President from fulfilling his Constitutional Responsibilities as Commander in Chief.

Whether it is constitutional for the president to initiate war without Congressional sanction is questionable, but there is no doubt that the president can use the army and use force without actually engaging in war, and certainly if Congress doesn't do anything about it.

[RyteWynger]

I fear that you've taken leave of your senses:

[ QUOTE ]
Carl said:
The fact that the Resolution to use Force is not a Declaration of War and is "Conditional", binds the President from fulfilling his Constitutional Responsibilities as Commander in Chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

A mere Congressional resolution [Not even a proper statute?] able to limit the President's Constitutional authority? Will Congress next, by mere Resolution, deprive the Executive of his veto? Keep it up and the nice men with the butterfly nets may begin to take an interest in you!

[ QUOTE ]
Carl continued:
By the way RyteWynger, 15 years in the Army (1977 - 1992) preparing but <font color="red">never once called into service to my country.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations! 15 years in service to your country! And don't kid yourself: it was service to your country. That would be the reason why they call it "serving your country."

Even in peace-time!

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
RyteWynger said:
The standing Armed Forces, as opposed to the State Militia, are already in the service of the United States, and -- for that reason -- can hardly be "called into" that service.....
.
.
Maintaining the Armed Forces in not commanding them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are always technically "in service" or they could just walk away anytime they wanted, but the President doesn't micro-manage the military in peace time. He commands them when he needs them, which could be at a moments notice, but he doesn't command/direct the routine 'peace time/non-emergency operations time' daily operations of the military.

[ QUOTE ]
All U.S. embassies are located outside of the United States. Countries don't dispatch ambassadors to their own soil! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rotflmbo.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, and so that means what exactly? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif

[MaximumSam]

[ QUOTE ]
RyteWynger rambled:



You attach too much significance to a grammatically inconsequential punctuation mark. The standing Armed Forces, as opposed to the State Militia, are already in the service of the United States, and -- for that reason -- can hardly be "called into" that service. The distinction that you and Analog Kid are trying to make is specious. The presence/absence of your special comma has no effect on the meaning of the clause.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the president can only be Commander-in-Chief when the Army is called, and Congress does the calling, then Congress (or the judiciary) gets to decide when the Army is actually called. Is existence enough to be 'called'? That's a question for the courts. Once again, we see that yes, the legislature can have a veto, and yes, the judiciary does play a role in the governance of the armed forces.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ryte Wynger - [ QUOTE ]
My dear Analog Kid, you are clearly mad or illiterate or both. The President's authority as Commander-in-Chief is not conditioned upon a declaration of war. I served in the regular army from 1983 to 1987, and I can assure you that, despite the complete absence of any declared wars during that period, President Reagan absolutely was the Commander-in-Chief

[/ QUOTE ]

What has become a standard practice doesn't make the practice constitutional any more than Social Security is constitutional because we've had it for ~65 years.

[ QUOTE ]
Seldom right and wrong again. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, are perpetually in the service of the United States. That's a big part of the reason why they're referred to as "the Armed Forces of the United States."

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to raise and support armies. Now, why would Congress have the power to raise what already exists and will continue to exist? The Framers did not want a permanent standing army, that's why Congress has the power to raise armies, not maintain them perpetually. Notice how the Constitution limits Congress' appropriating power for the army to a maximum of 2 years? Why? Because the Framers did not want to give one Congress the power to burden future Congresses with military (army) appropriations and wars, i.e., a permanent standing army. Congress has the power to maintain a navy without limitation, why doesn't the Constitution make that same provision for the army? Because the Framers knew a navy alone could not be used by a tyrant to suppress the states, remember, the Constitution is a grant of power to the federal government from the states. The militias and navy were to be our first and only permament line of defense with the raising of a federal army as a last resort.

Here are some of the powers given to Congress:

[ QUOTE ]
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[/ QUOTE ]

"Captures on land and water"? Doesn't that sound like an infringement on the President's war making abilities? How about letters of Marque and Reprisal?

[ QUOTE ]
Clause 12:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's that perpetuity you were talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
Clause 13:

To provide and maintain a Navy;

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the difference between raising/supporting armies for no more than 2 years and maintaing a navy without limitation?

[ QUOTE ]
Clause 14:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

More infringements on the CinC?

[ QUOTE ]
You attach too much significance to a grammatically inconsequential punctuation mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

Punctuation doesn't matter? It apparently mattered to the Framers...

[ QUOTE ]
The standing Armed Forces, as opposed to the State Militia, are already in the service of the United States, and -- for that reason -- can hardly be "called into" that service. The distinction that you and Analog Kid are trying to make is specious. The presence/absence of your special comma has no effect on the meaning of the clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the absence of your "standing armed forces already in the service of the USA" in the Constitution mean anything?

Chris - [ QUOTE ]
I see that you only said the "State Militias being called into the service of the United States". You omit the Army and Navy.

It reads as such -
"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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and the "actual" there makes a distinction between times of peace and war Ryte is ignoring.