A question for everyone about Congress, war and our President.?

Question

The Constitution gives Congress alone the right to declare war. Article 1, Section 8 has been definitively interpreted to mean exactly that. So, to give President Bush their power, Congress passes a resolution handing the ball to him on Iraq. After they do so, he mucks it up and now tells us all with great disdain that he is The Decider. He forgets he's only the Decider because Congress gave him that power. My question is can Congress rescind their vote on the resolution, and therefore put that power back where it belonged all along? If someone understands the intricacies of this I would appreciate an explanation. Does it have to do with whether it was binding or non-binding, etc.?

Thank you!

Answer 1

Well, actually the resolution was under the War Powers Act, not as a declaration of war. However, essentially you are correct. Here's the problem: under either, Congress can rescind Bush's authority to wage war--but he can veto such a resolution. So, in practice, you'd have to have a 2/3 majority in both Houses to revoke the Iraq war aguthorization.

Also, I'm not entirely sure the language of the War Powers Act specificallyallows for such a revocation. And the language of the Constitution does not say anything specific. So conceivably Bush could appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress didn't have legal authority to revok such authorization. And here's a real irony--the War Powers Act was enacted to prevent the presidet from getting us into such messes without having to answer to Congress! In other words, to prevent another Vietnam.

Do you get the feeling that after this mess is over, lawmakers need to sit down and think very caarefully aboutmaking some changes?

Answer 2

Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution reads as follows:

"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

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. . ."

Only Congress can create tribunals. . . Has this happened?

Only Congress can decide how to deal with those captured on land or water. . . Has this happened?

Only Congress can raise money for war, but it must not exceed 2 years. . . Has this happened?

Article 2 subsection of the Constitution reads, in part, as follows:

"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. . ."

This has happened, but the President still must confer with Congress over how the war is to be conducted.

Answer 3

Why are you all forgetting that the deficit replaced into cutting-edge earlier Bush took place of work? all the matters listed via people who spoke back have been cutting-edge for many, some years! Tax rules have sucked in previous administrations as nicely (enable's not ignore that a large number of democrats come from "previous" money - so if the assertion "the wealthy get richer" is genuine, then it applies to them as nicely. previous administrations additionally had no wellness care coverage. the previous administrations additionally did not something with social secure practices and the drug application. Medicare replaced right into a farce with previous administrations as nicely - not something's replaced. the previous administration additionally watched the Congress (the two events) spend money like drunken sailors (collectively as Monica replaced into busy under the table). The preparation application has been underfunded for some years. those problems weren't created via the present administration, and have not been safely addressed via previous administrations. So how does that equate to it being "Bush's fault?" If those matters have been fairly undemanding to clean up, then why did not Clinton clean up them????? So ... end whining! Why do democrats want responsible republicans whilst they do unlike what they see (even nevertheless regardless of "issue" they see would have been created some years earlier)? Why do republicans want responsible democrats whilst they do unlike what they see (see above)? Why will not be able to everybody only placed their own, person schedule's aside and do what's maximum suitable for the folk?

Answer 4

Congress gave Bush the permission to use military force if , the UN resolution called for the use of force, however, the use of military force was never given by the UN, yes Iraq violated several resolutions but none was seen by the UN as the permission for the US to invade Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq was disarmed by the UN inspector before The US invaded , consequently, leaving Iraq defenseless and with out long range missiles that under the UN order were destroyed and permitted by the then only elected official of Iraq Saddam, who compared to Puppets posted By the US are illegally running a nation for the benefit of The oil companies and not even for the benefit of the American people. So the invasion of Iraq was not only illegal but treason when Bush violated the US constitution in which is written that any treaty signed by the US with a foreign entity that being the UN is and become the law of the land for the US, consequently Bush is a traitor here once,second for 911,third for all the death incurred on our troops under lies of WMD's.
So Bush never had the power to make war but , he betrayed it's own nation.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Answer 5

My understanding of Article 1 sec. 8 is that Congress has the power to declare war.

After that, Article 2 kicks in, with the Pres as the Commander in Chief.

Of course, the House controls the purse-strings, but don't forget the Pres' veto power, which Congress must have a 2/3 vote to over-ride.

As far as rescinding their authorization to go to war, I think this is de novo territory. And so they won't go there.

Answer 6

Biden is sponsoring just such a measure. Answer is yes.

However, Congress was derelict in abrogating its Constitutional authority in the first place - meaning, Congress should have either declared war or not declared war but should never have simply said, "Uh, whatever YOU think, Mr. King--- er, President."

There hasn't been a Congressional declaration of war since 1941. As far as I'm concerned, we've had a constitutional crisis on our hands for the last fifty-odd years.

Answer 7

congress is the only one that can declar the US at war. however, bush is the comander in chief of US military forces he does not need permision to "commit" troops overseas. congress does hold the purse strings but whay congress would let troop be sent oversea empty handed. also because at the time congress and the white house was mostly republican. if congress had been mostly democratinc with a rebpublican pres. and vise versa the situation might have been different.

Answer 8

That is one of the best questions I've heard in a long time.I don't know the answer but will be watching close incase someone does.GREAT QUESTION

Answer 9

No, they can't resend their vote. The war in Iraq is going to have to run its course, whether we like it or not.

Answer 10

No, once its done its done the only way congress is getting power back is if bush is impeached.