If congress did not sign a declaration of war, how can anyone say they voted to go to war?

Question

I am having a difficult time understanding how congress could vote to go to war, and vote to fund a war, if a war doesn't even exist?

Answer 1

Because very few people--Members of Congress included--understand the distinction between "war" and "military action". If you are going to send troops and then fund them while they are away, then back it up with an official Declaration of War.

It is time to restrict the War Powers Act to what it used to be--that is too much of a slippery slope and too much power given to the Executive Branch.

I'm beginning to like hichefheidi--she thinks like I do...or perhaps I think like she does.

Answer 2

Good question!

Congress did declare war. The War Powers Act was not implicated in this conflict.

The Constitution does not specify the form a declaration of war should take. The October 2002 Iraq War resolution (as it is commonly known) authorized the president to use force against Iraq. I would say that is indeed the functional equivalent of a declaration of war, it was treated as such at the time. No one asked for any further congressional action that I know of. There was also the resolution passed just after 9/11, which authorized the president to fight terrorism. The ONE person who did not vote for it opposed it because it was broad and basically authorized Bush to start combat just about anywhere based on, I believe, some basic finding the president would have to make. So Bush was understood to have the authority for action from Congress. For many, that was the problem!

So everyone understood these resolutions as authorizing the use of force against (at least in the Iraq War resolution) specified targets. Legally I believe the bases have been covered, in substance absolutely, even if not 100% in form.

But words do matter. Some on the right have suggested that the resolution should have been labeled as a declaration of war, both to put the public on notice and as part of a process of public awareness and sacrifice that Bush should have used to rally the country. Some on the left have asid that label would have been more "honest" and that maybe it it had been labeled that way fewer would have voted for it. (Hillary Clinton and others have said that they voted for it just to give Bush authority to use in negotiations, nd did not expect him to use it to actually go to war. Some of these politicians made contradictory statements at the time, though, as well as in the first months of the war.) So as in the "subpoena" question, covering the bases legally may not be the best overall public relations and "good government" move. I can't help being legalistic - occupational hazard. I was always the one who knew the arcane rules in Monopoly! No one wanted to play with me.

None of this answers other questions about the justification for and advisability of the war, and the decision to attack was ultimately President Bush's alone.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/congress.terrorism/

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Oops! Did you want a simpler answer than this? C'mon, people, show me some love! :)

Answer 3

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

Answer 4

A war does exist. When the vote went to congress to send our soldiers, weapons and money to 'defend' the Iraq they joined the war effort. You don't have to technically declare "WAR" to fight. I think the same question existed in the 60's and 70's about the Viet Nam 'War'. There was never a declaration because it was not a clear cut conflict.

Answer 5

Elway...
I would refer you to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) and resolution 687(the ceasefire agreement for the 1991 gulf war). The ceasefire agreement was broken when Iraq threw out the weapons inspectors in Dec 1998. Since the ceasefire was brokered and signed with the U.N. with all the restrictions for Iraq, when it was violated, the U.N. gave defacto consent to resume hostilities. Besides this, Iraq either violated or ignored 17 different U.N. resoultions. All this was noted when congress voted to give the Pres. to use force if he deemed necessary.

Answer 6

In the history of this country there's only been but a few declarations of war.......yet we've had many wars. Congress voted on it.

Answer 7

True, they didn't vote to "declare war" on Iraq. However, Congress did vote on the issue.

In fact, the Dems in Congress insisted on voting to authorize the president to use military force and other means against Iraq, and then almost all voted in favor of it.

All the i's were dotted and the t's crossed to make it all nice and legal.

Answer 8

It was my understanding that immediately after 9/11 congress foolishly granted Bush the right to make war without their permission, and boy did he abuse it.

Not that congress would have stopped it anyway, they still wont stop it even now.
They could have cut off the war funding, and the troops would have been left with plenty of money in the pipeline to get home safely.
Congress however has it's own agenda, the war quite rightly make republicans look bad.

Answer 9

Public law 107-243...congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq (which Hilliary, among others, approved)

Answer 10

They didn't, they voted on a resolution giving Bush the right to take military action if he deemed it necessary. One of your answerers said they are still responsible because they knew he would likely do so. The problem with that is that there were standards to be met in that resolution by the President before he chose to take military action, and he did not meet those standards. Congress put those standards in there for a good reason and he ignored them. He was required to exhaust all diplomacy and get UN approval before taking action, and he did neither.