The ' surge' is unconstitutional without authorization from Congress.

[laststeamtrain]

"Concerning the proposed 'surge' by the Bush administration of 20,000-plus U.S. troops into Iraq, this requires further authorization by the U.S. Congress under the terms of the War Powers Resolution. Section 4(a)(3) makes it quite clear that the War Powers Resolution is triggered ... 'In the absence of a declaration of war , in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced ... (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation....'

We currently have about 140,000 troops in Iraq. Sending in an additional 20,000-plus would 'substantially enlarge' those forces. Therefore, the Bush administration would require further authorization from Congress for this euphemistic 'surge,' which is really a substantial escalation. Failure to obtain additional authorization from Congress for this substantial enlargement of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq would constitute an impeachable offense under the terms of the United States Constitution for violating the Constitution's War Powers Clause."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BOY20070106&articleId=4356

[Possumpoint]

1. 14.3% Increase

There is enough wiggle room in that wording, I think he'll get away with it. The word "substantially" just doesn't define things that tightly.

[Bluerthanblue]

2. thank you for this, I kept thinking that...

.. the rules of the WPR say that * had to come before congress every 6mos. or something like that, to justify continuing military deployments.

Has * come before the congress to apprise them of the 'progress' on schedule so far? Not that I've seen- but maybe he has.

[mike_c]

7. Sec. 4 of the IWR gives him a pass on that requirement....

It allows him-- or whomever inherits his mess-- to make a single report to Congress after it is all over.

[Bluerthanblue]

11. are you sure?... here is

that Sec.-

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Maybe it's my ignorance showing, but what I read in part b of this section is :
if * is submitting another report within the 60 day requirements, that cover the info that would need to be submitted to satisfy his 'report to congress' at least once EVERY 60 days, that the report(s)can be combined into one.- NOT that one single report is good for as long as the 'war' lasts...????

Boy do I feel confused and stupid.-

:crazy:

[mike_c]

14. no I'm not, now that you point it out like that....

My original reading of "a single consolidated report" was that the IWR gave the administration a way out of the WPR requirement for perodic reporting to Congress. However, now I'm not so sure.

[MADem]

3. I oppose any surge, but the Monkey has surged before without permission

This isn't a war, it's a police action. I don't recall a Declaration of War being issued. There was a halfassed resolution citing the UN but there's no piece of paper issued by Congress that says "A state of war exists between the United States of America and...." And what country? Iraq? Gee, now they're our allies. The "evildoers?" Which ones?

We're past time for Declarations of War. That's what has to happen when you have a clue as to who is the enemy. Now, we are engaged in a great civil war, to riff on Lincoln, only we're the Monkeys in the Middle of this civil war.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. IWR authorized as per war powers (1976) requirements.

And what Congress handed Bush was pretty much a blank check.

The actual clause from the war powers resolution of 1973 is:

(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.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

Bush has that specific statutory authorization in the IWR.

Further:

"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."

Which the White House cabal diligently does by going back to Congress every year for another off budget special funding authorization for the ongoing war crimes in Iraq.

What has to happen is Congress has to have the balls to say no more money for this illegal war. There is no legal loophole that will provide cover for the act of courage that must be done by our party. There is no court that will stretch to find a reason to agree with the legal argument you cite, just the opposite, the courts will either avoid any interfering decision or rule favor of the executive.

[JCMach1]

5. They could also deauthorize under the war powers act as well

However, the law itself is questionable and might not withstand any kind of court challenge. It has never really been tested.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. In addition that is an affirmative act.

Which would be new legislation, which could therefore be blocked in the Senate or vetoed in the white house.

Defeating new funding simply requires an unblockable and veto-proof no vote in either chamber. It will of course result in a serious constitutional crisis as the criminal cabal will continue the war, allocating funds from other programs, but that is where we are headed anyway.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. but has bush "consulted regularly with Congress??"

... if so, how does one define the verb 'consult'?

I thought that would involve some 'give and take' not simply dictating what he 'decides' to be the way to go.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. I'm afraid that he has.

I tried to point that out in my previous post. The criminals go back to Congress every year for another bag of money for the war and Congress dutifully agrees to provide more funds. That is not dictating anything. Congress has gone along with the war for four years, reauthorizing our involvement after another round of war powers resolution satisfying consultation.

The only remedy is for Congress to step up and say no to more funding for the war.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. I'm slow to grasp

simple concepts- (no joke- the obvious often sails right over my head) so please bear with me.
I can see looking back, that you were pointing to- And I've tried to walk through the WPR and just read the IWR twice trying to see where bush gets off claiming he's 'the decider'- but for the life of me I can't see it-

What I DID find in the IWR was this:

(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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(from White House Document site)

Has this happened?.... This guy makes the arrogant, self righteous statement that "I don't have to explain myself to anyone"... while playing with human lives, not being held accountable, or having to feel the true agony of his f*&ked up 'decisions'...

Am I being anal, naive, or just plain stupid to want to see that he's playing by the rules? Even when the rules are ones * shoved through legislation to make him less accountable?


sorry to be so dense... I'm just not seeing the full picture here-

thanks,
blu

[Warren Stupidity]

12. So it really boils down to compliance with the reporting requirements.

The IWR itself explicitly requires reporting as per the WPR.

"SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Union Calendar No. 451"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

While the criminal cabal is publicly on the record as holding the war powers resolution unconstitutional, (as has every executive since Nixon) I rather doubt that they would have opened up the door to a legal end run to their authorized war by not meeting these requirements. I have not been successful in finding the required reports, but my guess is that the cabal has followed the letter of the law, like the good nazis that they are.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. Thanks, Warren, I was

really beginning to believe I am as cognitively challenged as I'm often accused of being-:silly:

I suspect that you are indeed correct, that they have managed to meet the 'letter of the law' at least in appearance. I can't help but wish they messed up on some silly technicality which then succeeded in taking them down,- or ending their blood-lust/fest. But it's not likely.-

I appreciate your taking the time to try and figure this out.

Somethings got to give. This has to stop.

peace,
blu

[Bucky]

15. So, to sum up what is discussed in the posts above....

Congress and the president and all their little lawyers have seen to it that they fully complied with the legalities of the Constitution and the War Powers Act. But only by evading the spirit of the law, which is that sending our troops into combat should be something supported by the people through their representatives.

Thomas Jefferson warned us about eternal vigilence. He didn't warn us about Republicans.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. And to be fair, it was and is bipartisan.

The War Party really does exist and it consists of almost the entire Republican Party and some of the Democratic Party. We have an institutional crisis here as we have evolved, not quite by design, a de facto two party system, and both parties are in whole or in part controlled by a ruling class of elites who have their own agenda, their own goals, and do not care at all for what is best for the people of this country, the inhabitants of this planet, or for Democracy. They care only for their unprecedented wealth and power, and it is now manifestly obvious that they are willing to do anything to hold onto their power.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Bush isn't the first President who thinks he's above the War Powers Resolution

[JCMach1]

18. It really is unconstitutional... it has been like a big game of chicken

between the executive and legislative when and if to ever pull the constitutional trigger on the resolution. So far, it has served as political cover for all of the Cold War games and beyond that Presidents and Congress want to happen.

Sorry, but I believe in good old fashioned 'Declarations of War'. Let's go back to that!

[Hippo_Tron]

20. I think it would be a good resolution if it could actually be enforced

I'm okay with the President being able to act without congressional approval for SHORT TERM actions. But the war powers resolution has no means for forcing the President to pull out the troops when congress no longer approves of the war, and constitutionally the military has to listen to the President.

[Perky]

19. Umm take not that it is the War Powers Resolution not the War Powers Law