So What else in the US Constitution Doesn't Apply During a Self-Declared War?

Would you buy a car from the man above, not me, why would I buy anything else from him.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I think the most alarming thing here is that the Executive Branch of our government is conducting a "war" without it being declared by the Legislative Branch, and is further conducting wiretapping without getting permission from the Judicial Branch.

THIS is where the concern over upholding the Constitution comes into play. I don't care if you agree we should be in Iraq, agree "by any means necessary" is right... The very ideas, those magical "checks and balances" for which our democratic country was founded upon are being ignored and NO ONE SEEMS TO GIVE A CRAP. Where are we going next?
 
Jitterbuggery said:
I think the most alarming thing here is that the Executive Branch of our government is conducting a "war" without it being declared by the Legislative Branch, and is further conducting wiretapping without getting permission from the Judicial Branch.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the AUMF is a declaration of war from a constitutional standpoint, right?
 
This is a Declaration of War 12-8-1941:
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

This is the AUMF: 9-18-2001:
Use all necessary and appropirate force against those nations, organization, or persons he (President George W. Bush) determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terroist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or person, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The trouble is, no one sees the difference between the two.
 
Melendwyr said:
So why are we in Iraq, again?
Click to expand...
As if you didn't know...
IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Click to expand...
 
manny said:
Here's another lie from those guys. In reason number 12, they claim that the FISA court of review does not address the question of "the scope of that presidential authority and whether it extends to acts that would violate the provisions of FISA protecting U.S. persons from excessive government intrusion." Indeed, that very decision addresses it as clearly as can be done in the English language.
Click to expand...

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
Click to expand...


bush_smiling_2004_11_04.jpg


Like I said before: I think you, maybe, left out an important sentence, manny...

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.
Click to expand...
What's this, there's more?

It will be recalled that the case that set forth the primary purpose test as constitutionally required was Truong. The Fourth Circuit thought that Keith’s balancing standard implied the adoption of the primary purpose test. We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President’s constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. 629 F.2d at 914. Although Truong suggested the line it drew was a constitutional minimum that would apply to a FISA surveillance, see id. at 914 n.4, it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute carefully. The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.
Click to expand...

The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute. The question before the FISA Court Of Review is the reverse, dealing with the President's power in working with the reality of a congressional statute.

Don't tell Karl I said this. But Media Matters got it pretty close to correct. Trust me.
 
Bush supports the advocates of Intelligent Design. The advocates of Intelligent Design just make up stuff if the law isn't on their side. Ergo...
 
Bush supports the advocates of Intelligent Design. The advocates of Intelligent Design just make up stuff if the law isn't on their side. Ergo...
 
President Bush said:
The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute. The question before the FISA Court Of Review is the reverse, dealing with the President's power in working with the reality of a congressional statute.

Don't tell Karl I said this. But Media Matters got it pretty close to correct. Trust me.
Click to expand...
And what part of the Constitution allows Congress to take away the powers granted to the POTUS in the Constitution?

Hint: It can't be done, short of an amendment to the Constitution.

BTW: Congrats on your first post that approaches relevancy, President Bush!
 
President Bush said:
Perhaps, someday, somebody will say the same about you, Wildcat. Not today, by trying to deflect a serious point with a silly question.
Click to expand...
You think that the separation of powers in the Constitution is silly?
 
President Bush said:
The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute. The question before the FISA Court Of Review is the reverse, dealing with the President's power in working with the reality of a congressional statute.

Don't tell Karl I said this. But Media Matters got it pretty close to correct. Trust me.
Click to expand...
Well I'll be damned -- a salient point from PB. Some advice, Mr. President -- make your pictures smaller. I had put you on ignore simply because some of them were so huge. At any rate, welcome back.

At any rate, the issue facing both Truong and the FISA Court of appeals is, from their perspective, the constitutionality of wiretaps which are for the purposes of collecting foreign intelligence and which are subsequently used for other purposes -- specifically crime-fighting. The constitutional issue being decided is their admissibility in court or other usefulness, not the president's ability to do the wiretap in the first place.

As it happens a similar issue appears to have arisen in the current case -- one of the FISA judges became concerned that the extra-FISA court wiretaps were being used to gain FISA warrants and she did not feel that that was a proper use of the fruits of such taps. Again, she was not, apparently, objecting to the wiretaps in the first place but rather to their use to attain a FISA warrant, which in turn stands as a substitute for a 4th Amendment warrant for purposes of admissibility in Federal court. But no court has argued that the President doesn't have inherent authority to order such wiretaps, nor did Congress, as John Dean alleges, make the existence of such wiretaps an issue during President Nixon's proposed impeachment -- it was the use of the fruits of such taps which became, properly, a constitutional issue.
 
fishbob said:
Where is it in the Constitution exactly that the president is granted these particular powers?
Click to expand...
It's part of the President's powers as Commander-In-Chief, and this has been supported by numerous court decisions going back long before Bush was even born. FDR ordered wiretaps before there were even any laws allowing them in criminal investigations.

It's settled law at this point, and we all know from the Roberts hearings how it is of the utmost importance to honor previous court decisions. Or does this only apply to Roe v. Wade?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom