Reply #21: The IWR is specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Act

[Hart2008]

Everyone needs to read the text of the IWR. Here is the meat of the IWR:

3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) 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.
2. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

Usually wars end with a peace treaty. A better argument is to issue a resolution that we are no longer at war with the government of Iraq, e.g., that the new government of Iraq poses no threat to the U.S. and has complied with all U.N. resolutions, and the previous IWR is MOOT. (In fact it is our puppet regime which we supporting a civil war.) THEN, inform the President that he is in violation of the war powers act for using U.S. troops to intervene is a civil war and demand withdraw of U.S. troops FORTHWITH.

In the end, it won't matter. Bush is determined to thumb his nose at the Congress and people. The best options are defunding and impeachment. Following the veto, any further filibustering in the Senate will backfire on Repubs. They can't accuse Dems of not supporting the troops if they are filibustering the money. They are caught in the box on this.

Bush, like the Emperor Jones, is determined to stay until the end. Impeachment it must be.

So let us cut to the chase and start the impeachments. Executive privilege doesn't work in impeachment hearings. We start with Gonzo. Cheney is next, and does not get replaced by appointment.
Last is junior Shrub.

To paraphrase Jefferson in the modern age, the tree of liberty is watered with the conviction of tyrants.


http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick: