Congress trys to ursurp Presidents Powers.

[ArkangelX3]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/19/D8MOH37O0.html

I hate to break it to them, but the President doesn't need congressional approval to launch attacks against anyone. He may need the funding, but he doesn't need their approval.

 

[harry gilbert]

Congress, or Teddy Kennedy?

 

[Sonic605hp]

country is slowly turning in to a police state

 

[CobraKindaGuy]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/19/D8MOH37O0.html

I hate to break it to them, but the President doesn't need congressional approval to launch attacks against anyone. He may need the funding, but he doesn't need their approval.

I hate to break it to you but you are absolutely wrong.

The founders of the US divided war into two separate powers: the Congress was enpowered to declare war. The President was enpowered to wage war. Legally this translates into that the President cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.

The President is specifically prohibited by the Constiution to wage war unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That is why Woodrow Wilson and F.D. Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. entering into World Wars I and II was justified, had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict.

As for Bush there was a Congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that Bush had determined were linked to the 9/11 attacks.

That resolution does NOT constitute a Congressional declaration of war. It is instead a congressional grant to the president of powers to wage war. And more importantly it was a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make. So if anything both Congress and Bush overstepped Constitutional protocol regarding the war in Iraq.

 

[03gtcoupe]

well, I for one agree with congress, no war with Iran at least not this year!

 

[PSI87]

I'd like to have his powers limited, but as president of the USA, he can do just about whatever he wants.

 

[CobraKindaGuy]

country is slowly turning in to a police state

Slowly turning into one? It is already one.

 

[ArkangelX3]

War or Not War. It doesn't matter what its called. If the President wants to take military action against any country at any time. He does not need Congressional approval for anything. He only needs their funding, and their stamp of approval to actually call it "WAR"

 

[CobraKindaGuy]

War or Not War. It doesn't matter what its called. If the President wants to take military action against any country at any time. He does not need Congressional approval for anything. He only needs their funding, and their stamp of approval to actually call it "WAR"

The actions that a President can takes are limited to quick and small scale SWAT-like strikes against a country that pose an immediate threat to our immediate national security or our citizens. He cannot mobilize a full scale attack without Congressional approval. Limited strikes are not considered a "war". You interpret his powers broader than what they really are and how they have ever been exercised in history. There is a difference whether you wish to discern that difference or not.

 

[YELOSNK]

The actions that a President can takes are limited to quick and small scale SWAT-like strikes against a country that pose an immediate threat to our immediate national security or our citizens. He cannot mobilize a full scale attack without Congressional approval. Limited strikes are not considered a "war". You interpret his powers broader than what they really are and how they have ever been exercised in history. There is a difference whether you wish to discern that difference or not.

If you shoot a bee hive with a sling shot, and the bees come out to attack you, do you think anyone will not give you permission to fight the bees? The Pres basically has the ability to instigate a fight and make a threat that congress wont be able to deny. As far as I know, this is what happened in Korea, Vietnam, pretty much every "war" we've been in since WW2.

 

[txyaloo]

The actions that a President can takes are limited to quick and small scale SWAT-like strikes against a country that pose an immediate threat to our immediate national security or our citizens. He cannot mobilize a full scale attack without Congressional approval. Limited strikes are not considered a "war". You interpret his powers broader than what they really are and how they have ever been exercised in history. There is a difference whether you wish to discern that difference or not.

You seem to be forgetting about the Korean "War", the initial troops sent over during the Vietnam "War" prior to the Tonkin resolution, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, etc. I don't consider these engagements "limited attacks" and I highly doubt the troops that were mobilized do either. As the Commander in Chief, the President has the ability to send troops whenever and wherever he wants. That doesn't mean Congress has to approve funding.

You might want to look at the War Powers Act of 1973. The President can send troops into "war" for 90 days without needing any approval from Congress. It doesn't limit the number of troops or the scale of attack. A lot can happen in those 90 days. Also, the President specifically has the right to send troops if: "a national emergency [is] created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Who decides what is a national emergency? The President?

 

[CobraKindaGuy]

You seem to be forgetting about the Korean "War", the initial troops sent over during the Vietnam "War" prior to the Tonkin resolution, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, etc. I don't consider these engagements "limited attacks" and I highly doubt the troops that were mobilized do either. As the Commander in Chief, the President has the ability to send troops whenever and wherever he wants. That doesn't mean Congress has to approve funding.

You might want to look at the War Powers Act of 1973. The President can send troops into "war" for 90 days without needing any approval from Congress. It doesn't limit the number of troops or the scale of attack. A lot can happen in those 90 days. Also, the President specifically has the right to send troops if: "a national emergency [is] created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Who decides what is a national emergency? The President?

I agree with you, the President can do that but the original poster made it sound that the President has Napoleonic powers with absolutely no accountability. If Congress wants to they could recind any troops from any place the President sends them if they they introduce an emergency bill and have it pass both the House and Senate. The President can turn around and veto that vote but then Congress can override the veto with 2/3 vote.

But rather than go through all this the Congress has been given the purse strings to any action the President takes. So no funding means no war. And only an absolute idiot President would leave our soldiers there without money to finance their safety and ability to fight.

So the Congress has the ultimate last word in it all. And remember, the Congress has voted to make several budgets available for the Iraq war but not as a declared war but under that resolution I previously spoke of. Both the President and Congress has bypassed the Constitution on this one.

As a US citizen I am quite concerned about this "Constitutional bypass" because it makes me wonder what else they might try in the future to get around the foundations this country was built upon. Somebody mentioned earlier that we live in a police state. I have to agree when our own government begins to "go around" the US Constitution. That is a direct declaration that they have no respect for it and they will subvert it when they want to to do what they want to.

 

[CobraKindaGuy]

If you shoot a bee hive with a sling shot, and the bees come out to attack you, do you think anyone will not give you permission to fight the bees? The Pres basically has the ability to instigate a fight and make a threat that congress wont be able to deny. As far as I know, this is what happened in Korea, Vietnam, pretty much every "war" we've been in since WW2.

Korea, I'm not sure. I think there may have been some commitments to protect Japan whom we made promises to as part of our rebuilding their country after WWII. If the China backed North Korea was able to secure South Korea then that would put China into a great strategic location without any resistence to attack Japan. And for those who don't know, Japan and China are NOT allies. They have always hated each other, mainly because China has always wanted to conquor Japan.

Vietnam no. Vietnam started out when President Eisenhower sent our troops over there strictly to advise the South Vietnamese. The Pentagon then interpreted that "to advise" included "to train" the SV Army. Soon as part of that "training" our soldiers began to get involved in the skirmishes against the NVC.

And that is when the point was turned. The US government felt it would not look right if we started to pull out and leave a semi-train SV Army to shift for themsleves. Our government felt it would send a bad message out to other nations we were aligned with as Allies, that we would cut and run when the going got tough. That is how Vietnam started. It was NOT a declared war nor one we really wanted to be in but we sucked ourselves into it by how it was mismanaged.

And this is one of the same reason's that Bush has kept insisting we "stay the course" over there in Iraq. If we were to make a sudden withdrawal of troops from Iraq it would certainly send out a bad message about trusting us as Allies. The problem is compounded by the fact that we were the agressors in Iraq so it really commits us to having to stay a while. Otherwise it would look like we went into their country, disrupted everything, succeeded at nothing and then left them high and dry.

There is alot of political image stuff and usually a much larger unspoken political alliances picture with other countries that goes along with war besides we we hear or see on the news. It isn't as cut and dry as we would like to all make it.