LATIMES says we are winning in Iraq.

MonsterMark

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
The LA TIMES editorial board has 10 heads. They can't seem to make up their minds.

We are losing.
We are winning.
We should surrender and retreat.
We should stay and pull back.
We are losing but should stay.

Try and figure this beaut out.

Times Editorial

"It has taken nine bloody and difficult months, but the deployment of 30,000 additional U.S. troops appears at last to have brought not just a lull in the sectarian fighting in Iraq, but the first tangible steps toward genuine political reconciliation."

"Last week, the parliament passed a crucial package of legislation that reflects real compromise among the many factions on three of the thorniest issues that have bedeviled Iraq. First, a law requires that provincial elections be held by Oct. 1, and requires that a law spelling out the details on conducting the election be passed within 90 days."

"If the momentum of Iraq's political surge is sustained, it's conceivable that the United States, having torn the country apart in an ill-conceived invasion and a disastrous occupation, could help glue the biggest pieces together on its way out the door. But building a decent government will probably prove even harder than curbing the violence. And even under the rosiest scenario, it will be our moral duty to provide large-scale political, military and humanitarian aid, including support for the refugees who are beginning to trickle back home, for many years to come."
 
shagdrum said:
:) We've had that discussion...
Click to expand...
Yes we have...and you've yet to convince me that I'm wrong on this. But hey, I was backing Geno's statement up with facts. There is a law on the books that prohibits what we did.
 
JoshMcMadMac said:
My mistake, I am familiar with the Constitution. I was asking for a link to the previous discussion on the matter.
Click to expand...

That would be the Founding Fathers on Non-Interventionism thread.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=39099


If you want to discuss this, I would recommend keeping it in that thread so we don't have to cover the same ground in a new thread. Also, it is a bit easier for others to follow.
 
fossten said:
Yes we have...and you've yet to convince me that I'm wrong on this. But hey, I was backing Geno's statement up with facts. There is a law on the books that prohibits what we did.
Click to expand...

Based on your link, I assume you are referring to Congress's power to declare war, your argument being that since congress did not declare war, the president's use of force in Iraq is illegal (correct me if I am wrong here please).

I would refer you to two pieces of legislation. The first is the War Powers Resolution that was passed by Congress in 1973, and recently updated.

It says, in part,

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The citation is 50 United States Code, chapter 33, section 1541. Link is here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html

It is clear from paragraph (c) above that the President may insert troops into hostilities without a declaration of war from Congress, e.g., if provided with a statutory authorization by congress, or in times of a national emergency. Item (2) above is key here.

The second piece of legislation is the Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Military Force that Congress passed on Sept. 18, 2001.

Link is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107

The relevant part reads as follows:

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ....

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.


Taking these two pieces of legislation together, it seems pretty clear that Congress authorized the president to use military force to protect the country from international terrorism, including the invasion of Iraq. No declaration of war was needed.
 
ToddG said:
Based on your link, I assume you are referring to Congress's power to declare war, your argument being that since congress did not declare war, the president's use of force in Iraq is illegal (correct me if I am wrong here please).
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what he is refering to.


Taking these two pieces of legislation together, it seems pretty clear that Congress authorized the president to use military force to protect the country from international terrorism, including the invasion of Iraq. No declaration of war was needed.
Click to expand...

The constitution never specifically spells out what a "declaration of war" is! For all we know, the resolution authorizing force could've met the Framers criteria for a "declaration of war"; especially given the nature of our enemy.

Again see this thread, as some of what you posted is already touched upon there (namely the War Powers Resolution and it's inherent unconstitutionality).

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=39099
 
shagdrum said:
The constitution never specifically spells out what a "declaration of war" is! For all we know, the resolution authorizing force could've met the Framers criteria for a "declaration of war"; especially given the nature of our enemy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In the United States there is no format required for declaration(s) of war. The Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."


Some may argue that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. Well, it isn't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is, and they have not done that, despite the War Powers Resolution being in effect for over 30 years and being used many times by various presidents.
 
ToddG said:
Exactly. In the United States there is no format required for declaration(s) of war. The Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."


Some may argue that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. Well, it isn't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is, and they have not done that, despite the War Powers Resolution being in effect for over 30 years and being used many times by various presidents.
Click to expand...

The supreme court doesn't have to declare something unconstitutional for it to be such. There declaration that a law isn't constitutional simple codifies it's unconstitutional nature. That is like saying, the General Lee isn't orange until someone sees it and says it is orange. A law is either constitutional or unconstitutional by it's very nature.

The presidents usually don't use the War Powers Resolution, they simple find ways to work around it. That is why it hasn't been challenged in the Supreme Court. The closest it came to that was when it was passed under Nixon, who threatened to take it to the Supreme Court (where it would surely have been declared unconstitutional and shot down), but watergate blew up and Nixon had more politically pressing matters to attend to.
 
shagdrum said:
The supreme court doesn't have to declare something unconstitutional for it to be such. There declaration that a law isn't constitutional simple codifies it's unconstitutional nature. That is like saying, the General Lee isn't orange until someone sees it and says it is orange. A law is either constitutional or unconstitutional by it's very nature.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. In Marbury v. Madison, it was decided that one function of the Supreme Court is to say what the law is in a process called Judicial Review. Just because you or I say a law is constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't make it so, much less "its very nature", whatever that means. The Supreme Court is the only authority on this, and it decides whether a law is constitutional or not, irrespective of its "nature". Here, you have arguments supporting constitutionality and arguments supporting unconstitutionality. Who decides which is right? The Supreme Court.

If your goal is to end the war because the President used the War Powers Act to engage the US in the war, and you believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, nothing will happen until the law is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So from a practical perspective, yes, the Supreme Court DOES have to say it is unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 160 (members: 0, guests: 160)
Back
Top