Constitutionally, only Congress can authorize war, not the President. Did Congress authorize a war with Iraq? No. They authorized the ambiguous use of force, which the president himself has termed a war, making it unconstitutional. If you read section 2, there is a caveat, and that is that the US follows US security council resolutions and initiatives (paraphrasing). While there is an argument for pre-existing resolutions to support the document you linked, the UN security council alone determines who enforces their resolutions. The US cannot arbitrarily decide outside the UN to become an enforcer. You might want to read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html I'm not a super expert at the US Constitution, so if I am in error, please let me know. Btw, the UN Charter is a treaty ratified in San Francisco after WWII. Re-read the section you quoted. I'm getting "Supreme Law of the Land". If the gov't can flex or ignore the constitution, the very constitution that was put in place to protect the rights of American citizens, I think that is scary. How about you?
This is incorrect. The word "war" is simply that - a word. Most, if not all, military "wars" involve the use of force. You're playing semantics. Wrong again. Section 2, sub-section 2 reads in full This is talking about Iraq and it's obligations under the security council resolutions with regards to the 1991 cease fire. Nor am I Constitutional expert, but what I get from reading that section is that all laws and treaties passed by the govt. will adhear to the constitution which is the "Supreme Law of the Land"
I'm not playing semantics. The president cannot wage war (legally) unless congress expressely declares it. Checks and balances, that's a constitutional absolute. And war is more than a word, because declaration of war gives the government unique powers (military tribunal etc.) Section2, subsection 2 makes my point. The UN regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, because the US alone cannot choose to enforce UN resolutions. By treaty, the US accepts the charter of the UN. It is supreme law of the land. The interpretation you posted is incorrect. If the United States accepts a treaty, it is law. Neither congress, nor the senate nor the president can override it unless they choose to withdraw from the treaty or pass a constitutional amendment.
This is what it says towards the end of section 1 It would appear the President does have authority under the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, to take action. Again, as much as you'd apparently like it to, the un does not userp U.S. Law. Here is another excerpt from the Authorization It would seem that prior un resolutions had already authorized the use of force to impliment the current un resolutions So you're saying, as an example, that if we sign a treaty with, say, Germany that says U.S. citizens can not speak of the atrocities of the holocost, that then becomes law? That has got to be the silliest interpretation of the constitution I've ever heard. Treaties nor enacted laws can not violate the constitution. It's that simple.
You're talking about the AUMF, not the Constitution. The last time I checked, the Constitution was still supreme law. I mean, before GWB decided to hold military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees (illegally) and authorized wire tapping. When Congress gave him the ambiguous AUMF, they gave him powers that are so grey, he is able to operate with impunity, which is not how the Constitution was intended to function. Checks and balances, remember? It does not give him the power to wage war. Nor did it give him power vested by the UN to carry out resolutions. It's not about what I like, it's about what is legal. The UN Charter IS American law because it is an accepted treaty. This is not that complicated. You can find numerous cases of hunting treaties that could not be overrode by congress without ending the treaty or making an amendment. While the treaty is engaged, it is law of the land. Period. I'm not sure if you're just not reading what I am writing or what. I said that existing resolutions were used to justify the AUMF, but the USA was not sanctioned by the UN to enforce them. I never disputed that. But once a treaty is accepted, it becomes law of the land, without exception under the Constitution. Heck, you are making my point. Congress cannot authorize the US to enforce UN resolutions without following the UN Charter (Constitutionally considered Supreme Law). And Congress cannot authorize GWB to wage war, although in a very clever, lawyer pleasing AUMF, they have. And they have allowed him the discretionary leeway in that document to invade the privacy of the American citizen. All of which is totally illegal. I'll leave you with this quote to consider. James Madison said,
oulala you are giving me a headache! reading if the invasion was legal or not, too picky... sorry for the long and not well written post... I'm not american and I can tell you that since day one (pre invasion days) I know the bush is bullshitting and that us media relays the false informations to the public. This is clearly wrong, and except for some american people, who can support this aggression? USA are lucky to be strong because many people would feel happy when something bad happens to usa, it's like a justice at least. Like when you're happy to see the bully get hurt (if you're not a bully's friend of course) when i hear so many dead soldiers in iraq i say to myself that : 1. they deserve it, for being so stupid to go to iraq, even if it's orders, some are leaving for canada to refuse to participate in injustice. 2. they are professional of death and the deads are so much less than the innocent iraqui civilians. now, this is just for people dying, that's just how i feel. But back to the responsabilities, it's the bush administration, with an agenda of war that is so dangerous, and unfortunately american people against the war have to admit it, it's the rsponsability of the people who re-elected bush after what he's done. This is both stupid and selfish, because of course the war is not happening in your territory, so your soldier dying is just a discomfort, not like if the war was happening on your land with innocent people dying. I know for soldiers family this is a tragedy, of course it is, but don't forget that a soldier is not an innocent victim, that has to be clear. In the case of Jessica Lynch I've read her version of the event, and it reminds me so many other stories that only people who don't think outside of the box (tv box) in america cannot see too. I believe what she said and honestly now no politician says they should draw back from iraq, but me i say you still should, but of course now no one wants : 1. us to loose control of the iraqui petrol industry they spent so much money and lives to secure 2. see an islamic country (anti american and west for sure) to be born instead of the laic country of saddam days. well, after all the deception, thinking that even you can force democraty on a people who never knew it, never fighted to get it, is dellusional. Better have a strong dictatorship than chaos and religion-power, but now isn't it a little too late ? I don't know what america should do, but staying there will not give you good karma, and you've lost so much already!
She must be foreign terorist (she may even has a tatoo "zehra x" - you know zehra is an muslim name) cause what she says is against us propaganda and politics. LOL