What amazes me is there is no immediate rejection of this idea the President is solely responsible for declaring war. I mean in well over the first century of the United States it was accepted that Congress decided to make war and all of a sudden that idea is obolete and discarded with no public debate or changes to the constitution? So who the hell is Bush Sr. to remake the basic principles of American government by simple declaration? Are the members of Congress really that spineless to let him declare them pointless and powerless with no outcry?
The Bush clan is no less a gang of warlords than any tribal leader in Afganistan.
posted on March 9, 2003 01:35:13 PM new
You are most right about that! This is why the Bribery System in Congress is so set into place. The Congress has been "gotten to" and they are corrupt beyond belief. They need to decide just whose side that they are on ~ ours or theirs, and then prepare for the worst.
By that I mean, the worst is yet to come. With these new sweeping changes, Congress will be suspended indefinetly. When that does happen, what will you do? Can we vote out the danger and put an honest government in? Tell me WHO is going to be put into place there? The only way that we can get back our government at this point is to either vote out the entire body kit and kaboodle and install BRAND NEW PARTIES with all unknowns who are pledged to return our democratic form of government to us or we ourselves will have to march to the capital, arrest all of the lawmakers there - Neuremburg-style, and install a Temporary Citizen's Government that will work to change the laws back to protecting us once again and to rebalance the Constitutional system of Checks and Balances.
posted on March 9, 2003 01:44:53 PM new
gravid - If you're speaking to the issue of 'declaring war' we haven't done that since Vietnam.
How do you see this any different than when Clinton bombed Iraq? He didn't go to the UN, to Congress, etc. Just acted on his own. This isn't all of a sudden. I'm not seeing a difference here.
Bush will be the one with the FINAL decision making power. But Congress did vote him this power. Wouldn't have happened if they'd voted NO....or won't continue if they don't fund it. He's not alone....just has the final say.
posted on March 9, 2003 03:53:44 PM new
If you read what his daddy has said it infers that congress can no longer make these decisions.
To turn it the other way around I am not sure if he would prosecute a war if Congress declared one since only the President can make that decision.
For example if Congress decides Korea has to be disarmed of it's nukes just like Bush is deciding to disarm others..
[ edited by gravid on Mar 9, 2003 03:58 PM ]
posted on March 9, 2003 04:33:39 PM new
To be precise Linda, we haven't congressionally declared war since WWII, VietNam was not a declared war. While I do very strongly believe that the Congress should be involved in THIS particular decision to go to war, given it's potential for escalation, and due to the fact that there is a much bigger threat to the US (IMO) in Korea. Unfortunately, EVEN THOUGH the Constitution appears to vest the power to go to war with the Congress, as near as I can figure out, only FIVE of the following conflicts since the ratification of the Constitution were Congressionally declared actions.Here is a list of major US military action since the ratification, with congressionally declared wars indicated by an asterisk. Somebody correct me if you find an error.
The Ohio Valley Campaigns -- 1790-1812
The Whiskey Rebellion -- 1794
The Barbary Wars -- 1801-05, 1815
*The War of 1812 -- 1812-1815
The First Seminole War -- 1817-1818
The Black Hawk War -- 1832
The Texas War for Independence -- 1835-1836
The Second Seminole War -- 1835-1842
*The Mexican War -- 1846-1848
The Indian Wars -- 1860-1890
The Civil War -- 1861-1865
*The Spanish-American War -- 1898
The Philippine Insurrection -- 1899-1902
The Boxer Rebellion -- 1900
Nicaragua -- 1912-25, 27-33
Pancho Villa's Rebellion -- 1916-1917
*World War I -- 1917-1918
Archangel/Siberia Expedition -- 1918-1920
*World War II -- 1941-1945
The Korean War -- 1950-1953
Lebanon -- 1958
The Vietnam War -- 1964-1973
Grenada -- 1983
Panama -- 1989-1990
The Persian Gulf War 1990-1991
The Balkans -- 1995-ongoing
So please, let's not blame undeclared conflicts on Clinton. You'd think that all these non-ratified wars would be a concern for the "strict constitutionalists" on the right, but I guess not.
posted on March 9, 2003 05:06:01 PM new
*Maybe* an error in the Barbary Coast war
The U.S. Declared WAR on the pirates on the Barbary Coast, and it WAS a war, and it wasn't any specific country....... not unlike the war on Terrorism going on today. The U.S. went after Pirates, today the U.S. is going after terrorists
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 9, 2003 05:16:33 PM new
profe - I believe you mis-understood my statement. I'm not blaming anything on Clinton. I was using him as an example of a very recent time when he took our troops to war/conflict/etc. [what three times?], without asking the Congress to approve, without going to the UN.
I was asking why that didn't bother those who are so against not having Congress make the decision, how they find what Bush is doing different from what Clinton did. Some appear to me to only be bothered by it now, but weren't under the Clinton administration. [not speaking about gravid, because I don't know if it bothered him them or not].
And to me, if Congress gives any president approval to go to war I, as a citizen, accept that they have good reason to do so. I don't believe a president should make that decision on his own, without approval from our Congress.
posted on March 9, 2003 05:46:31 PM new
Yes Linda - It is not a specific problem I have attached to one President.
The direction things are going it is easier all the time for one man to commit the full power of the nation to any action he pleases.
Someday they may regret allowing that to happen. If a President has a sudden case of rage or mental break down it may result in a catastrophic tragedy because the military will just obediantly follow his orders no matter how insane given that input from Congress is becoming more and more of a token.
When will even a token consultation not be sought? It would not surprise me to see that happen right now if Bush saw a need to extend his military action across the border into Iran or Jordan in 'hot pursuit' or act against Korea.
Sounds to me like Bush thinks he has full authority to act anywhere anytime.
posted on March 9, 2003 06:53:49 PM new
Linda, for me, I see a SMALL ROLE for the Executive; i.e. the President to take it upon his or her own initiative and to involve the United States of America into a military conflict without previous consultation to or the approval of the Congress.
That role is due to modern weaponry. Should China or North Korea fire its nukes at us, we have only a very limited time to respond in kind. If the Chinese suddenly somehow land a million+ army on our western shores complete with all support, a response needs to get into action right away, because a modern army moves so quickly.
Under those types of conditions AND if there is provably not enough time to consult the Congress and get approval for military action, only then should the President have any authority to do the above responses.
Furthermore, the President must inform the Congress within X amount of prudent hours and to then receive APPROVAL FOR any military action plan that the President then presents - WITH CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT!
What has been happening is scary. The authority to involve us in War, whether declared or undeclared, should NEVER be left in the hands of one person! NEVER! That previous Presidents have done this and have gotten away with it does not make me feel any safer about Bush's desire to conquer the world.
REAMOND will remind me that we are a Democratic Republic. True. But in any form of Democracy, it is the PEOPLE who ultimately decide if we should go to War or not - not leaders, politicians or bureaucrats! That's because it is WE THE PEOPLE who end up risking our arses on the battlefield!
Congress is our representative to the government more than anything else. They are there to represent US and what WE THE PEOPLE want! Therefore, in their Wisdom, our founding fathers put their trust in the representatives of WE THE PEOPLE and gave only THEM the authority to declare War!
One may argue that they didn't say that Congress couldn't simply sign away that power to the President. True. However, if Congress has the right to sign away our Founding Father's trust to them to a single individual, then they could also give it to ME!
That's right - they could also give it to me. Or to you. Or to just anyone that they please! Wouldn't *THAT* be a pleasant thought?
Therefore, if it is wrong for Congress to renounce their responsibility given to them by our Founding Fathers and hand it to me or a bum on the street, then it is also WRONG to give it into the sole hands of ANY President!
posted on March 9, 2003 07:56:46 PM new
The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
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.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
SEC. 5. (a)
Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
SEC. 5. (c)
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL
SEC. 6. (a)
Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (b)
Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (c)
Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC 6. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
SEC. 7. (a)
Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (b)
Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (c)
Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.
SEC. 8. (b)
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
SEC 8. (c)
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2)
shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.
CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was
Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.
Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was
Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.
posted on March 9, 2003 08:03:32 PM new
It misses my point. My point is that if Congress can renounce their Right to Declare War, then they can give it to anyone. To Wit:
The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective
judgement of both the Congress and Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such
situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation 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.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3.
Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into
situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult
regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply,
replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect
to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section,
Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the
status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the
Congress less often than once every six months.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
SEC. 5. (a)
Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation pro
tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the
Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their
respective Houses) shall jointly request Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action
pursuant to this section.
SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation
shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the
Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law
such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be
extended for not more than an additional thirty days if Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military
necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a
prompt removal of such forces.
SEC. 5. (c)
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States,
its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation if the
Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL
SEC. 6. (a)
Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in
such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than
twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by
the yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (b)
Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate
shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such
House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (c)
Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be
reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill
so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been
reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC 6. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees
shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four
calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48
hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of
conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not
later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
SEC. 7. (a)
Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in
such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations
within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (b)
Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate
shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such
House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (c)
Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be
reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending
business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine
by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees
shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six
calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of
conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not
later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report
back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in
any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such
situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United
States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of this joint resolution.
SEC. 8. (b)
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed
Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level
military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any
treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
SEC 8. (c)
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed
forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or
government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2)
shall be construed as granting any authority to Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into
situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this
joint resolution.
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint
resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.
CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JAMES O. EASTLAND
Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation of the Senate pro tempore.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war
powers of Congress and Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation", returned by Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in
which it originated, it was
Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.
Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress
and Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation", returned by Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was
Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.
posted on March 9, 2003 08:42:10 PM new
Thanks for the clarification Linda. Regarding sending troops to combat, it bothered me when Clinton did it, and it bothers me even more now. If the Congress ok's this war, while I may still disagree with it, at least I will feel it represents something closer to the true will of the American people.
posted on March 10, 2003 06:44:22 AM new
Lindak doesn't know how ANYONE here felt when Bill Clinton did what he did as AW wasn't even here then - doesn't stop her idiotic claims though.. Clinton DID go to congress when required by the war powers act as has bush - once. He doesn't think he has to go back as spec'd in the war powers act and he may not. A court ought to figure that out but it hasn't been brought and there isn't time anyway.
"if you're speaking of the issue of "declaring war' we haven't done that since VietnamHaven't declared war since Vietnam" - anyone else would be too embarrassed to continue posting with such a level of ignorance.
posted on March 10, 2003 08:34:44 AM new
krs- The case was brought and just thrown out of a federal District court.
The court ruled that 1: there is no conflict between what Bush is doing and the resolution passed by Congress, and 2: The question of if war was declared in the language of a resloution is a political question to be answered by the political branches. All it takes is a veto proof majority+ and Bush is stopped cold.
If Congress does not agree with what Bush is doing, it need only pass legislation to stop him.
The only problem is that the majority of Congress supports what Bush is doing. It may not support him tomorrow, next month or next year, but until Congress pulls the legislative rug out from under Bush, there is no constitutional conflict.
posted on March 10, 2003 10:04:40 AM new
(butting in here) REAMOND, isn't there a difference between the suit that was just shot down and the fact that Bush is ALSO not abiding by the War Powers Act itself?
It is chilling to think that the Republican Party is so willing to let these matters fall to just one person to decide the fate of hundreds of millions of people. It makes me wonder why we even bother to have a Congress.
posted on March 10, 2003 10:24:40 AM new
The war powers act is not at issue due to the October resolution. The plaintiffs claimed that the Congress did not pass anything that allows Bush to do what he is doing, and that if it did, Congress can not delegate war powers in such a wholesale manner to the executive branch. The war powers act oulines how long etc., a president may use military force without direct Congressional approval. But in this case, the president has Congressional approval, so war powers may be moot.
However chilling you may think it is, prosecuting a war is the constitutional duty of one person- the president. Once Congress provides direct or indirect approval of broad objectives that gives use of force discretion to the executive, it is the president that determins the time, place, and function of military force.
No declaration of war every gives explicit rules of engagement, and if it did, there might be a problem of Congress overstepping into the Commander-in-Chief's constitutional area.
As example, if Congress declares war on country X, did Congress mean that we could also use force against country Y that is supporting country X ? What about troops that country X has peacefully garrisoned in country M ? Can we bomb those troops in country M?
Congress and the executive intentionally leave resolutions to use military force somewhat vague to give the Commander-in-Chief broad discretion to prosecute the war.
There are two very good reasons for this. First, you can not effectively command an army in the field by a huge political committe; Second, by publicly legislating war strategies and underlying strategic goals, you telegraph this information to your opponent.
posted on March 10, 2003 10:33:11 AM new
If you don't like what Bush is doing, blame Congress.
I've said this before and it is still true- The president can not move a soldier across the street without some form of Congressional approval. In the broadest sense, the Congress must approve pay for the soldier and money for all military equipment. The soldier disappears without money in the budget.
If the Congress did not support Bush's deployment of troops to the Persian Gulf to attack Iraq, where did the billions come from to move the people and equipment ?
If Congress believes that Bush is overstepping the resolution, repeal the resolution and make a new one that is more explicit.
This not "Bush's war". There can be no war without our representatives' approval.
posted on March 10, 2003 10:48:42 AM newThe soldier disappears without money in the budget.
Not necessarily. Take the Persian Gulf War for example:
allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Japan and South Korea chipped in some $54.1 billion of the Persian Gulf war costs, leaving the net direct U.S. contribution for the war at a minuscule $7 billion.
posted on March 10, 2003 11:10:51 AM new
No, it necessarily true. the soldier isn't there in the first place if there is no money.
If the other nations financed 100% of a war, all Congress need do is unfund any or all military maintenance of men and equipment, and they disappear overnight.
Also, all Congress need do is pass a resolution that troops can not be used regardless of who pays and it is stopped.
Anyone who thinks that this war is Bush's war, has no idea how a 3 branch government works, nor understands the branch powers via the constitution.
Unless there is an offence to the constitution, Congress in agreement with the president is just as powerful as the "king in parliment" once was. You can disagree all you want, but unless you vote a new majority into office, after redress and first amendment practices,there is nothing else you can do.
posted on March 10, 2003 12:06:23 PM new
Okay....I have absolutely no problem with being proved wrong. But it has been my understanding that in 1998 before Clinton bombed Iraq, he did not get congressional approval for that attack, as Bush has done and as HIS FATHER did before him, nor did Clinton have the approval of the UN security council.
And I believe the last time the US 'declared' war was in WW11. The Korean conflict did slip my mind....but I knew it was a conflict...not a declared war. As vietnam wasn't.
What I have tried to state over and over is that Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 all have said the same thing about the need to remove Saddam and disarm him. I have supported these actions/statements from all THREE.
Clinton [in 1998] met with the same UN opposition that Bush currently is facing. Russia, China, France, Isreal, Turkey and the list goes on....were in total disagreement with his bombing Iraq.
So...please...I'm open to being shown my statement was wrong. Just show me.
