Biden says Bush has a "declaration of war"

[Jai4WKC08]

On Hardball Wed nite, Biden said:

"...and by the way, a congressional authorization to use force, which the president has, is equivalent to a declaration of war, constitutionally."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10566006/

BushCo has been arguing all along that Congress passed a declaration of war, but this is the first time I've heard a Democrat say so. Have I missed what others are saying? Is Biden out to lunch? Or did he let something slip that all of them know but are afraid to admit out loud?

Do you think it's true that there has been the "equivalent... constitutionally" to a declaration of war?
If you think so, does it give Bush additional authority to do things that previous presidents (such as Clinton in Kosovo) would not have been allowed, or even thought to presume to have?

I'd also be interested in comments as to whether it's a good idea politically for Democrats to admit that Bush has his declaration. Seems to me that there is all kinds of historical precedent for presidents at war to override civil liberties (Lincoln and habeus corpus, for example) and if we accede to this, we open the door to pretty much anything. But maybe that genie is out the bottle already.

[CJCRANE]

1. Um..."an authorization" means...

"an authorization".

As for a "declaration", I guess that would be called..."a declaration".

[formercia]

2. Check out the declaration of war the Congress passed

after Pearl Harbor. I think you will find a lot of difference in the wording. There is a difference.

[wyldwolf]

22. The interpretations of Jefferson and Hamilton

An early controversy (regarding Article I, Sec. 8 "Declare War") revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bay of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war.

President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war.

Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ''and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .'' But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.

So, in effect, a Declaration of War was not needed after Pearl Harbor.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

34. Has war on us been declared by another country?...

Cause if they did, I missed it.

[wyldwolf]

35. You are assuming other countries have the same process we do..

... but the topic of the subthread was Peal Harbor.

And If you'll look down thread, you'll see congress doesn't have to have some ceremonial formal Declaration of War.

[Uben]

3. BS

Only congress has the power to declare war, and they haven't. Biden is a friggin pansy who is pandering to centrists because he is running for prez.

[Massacure]

4. They never declared war, but still gave Bush the keys to the military.

Bush can use it for pretty much whatever he wants outside the United States.

[mark414]

5. how can you declare war

on an "enemy" without a country...a base of operations...a face...???

[Jai4WKC08]

7. In Tom Daschle's WaPo op/ed this morning

He says, "On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to 'deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.' Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize 'all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons determines planned, authorized, committed or aided' the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda."

This doesn't address the question of whether Congress gave Bush the constitutional "equivalent" of a declaration of war, but it does identify the enemy, and thus theoretically the objective and end state of such a war.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says wars can only be declared against nations, or anything tied to a specific geographic location. But on the other hand, it could be argued (not that I would do so) that Bush has the legal authority to attack al Qaeda militarily wherever he might find them. That's some 60 countries last I heard, and could theoretically include here within the US (altho Daschle argues elsewhere in his column that it does not). Pretty scary stuff.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I do not equate the authorization to use for with a Declaration of War

I am not a legal scholar, granted, but it is clear to me that a formal Declaration of War is a very big deal and it is seldom done. However there are numerous instances, with varying degrees of justification or lack of it, where military force has been used without a state of war going into effect. The use of force and a formal state of war are not the same. For example, had Congress passed a resolution authorizing Carter to use whatever means necessary to free the American Embassy hostages in Iran, I do not believe that would have been the equivalent of Declaring War on Iran. Iran could have taken it as an act of war and they might have declared war on the United States as a result, but those are further steps down an admittedly slippery slope.

[liveoaktx]

8. I actually Video-clipped that -was surprised to hear him say it

On CanOFun

I won't vote for him he runs.

[AzDar]

9. So, falling under THIS logic,when LBJ declared a "war" on poverty,

he should have been granted unlimited and unchecked executive power?!?

[formercia]

10. Let's just say that a Democrat wins in 2008

and the law is still in effect and it is found that the persons who perpetrated 9/11 are members of or connected to the current administration. Interesting scenario.

[wyldwolf]

11. what's the big deal?

Only congress can declare "war," right? On that we agree.

But if congress gives the authorization to use military force, isn't it the same in principle?

"Son, here are the keys to my Mercedes, but you can't call it a mercedes until I say you can."

Or are people here objecting to using the term "war" when Congress has not officially declared an act "war?"

I think the distinction in this case is a nit pic.

[Jai4WKC08]

13. No, there's a difference

A declaration of war allows certain things in other laws. For example, mobilizing the military and the industrial base to support it: with a declaration of war, the president is authorized to call up unlimited numbers of reservists and guardsmen and keep them on active duty indefinitely. He could also enact certain provisions to force factories to produce equipment, or force commercial airlines to pull the seats out of passenger planes to carry it.

Then there's the attitude of what the public is generally willing to accept. Presidents at war, in a declared war, have been known to blatently disregard what are considered bedrock rights of the people during peacetime. They can ration goods and control distribution. They can lock citizens up without due process or any other Constitutional protection (something the Supreme Court has held Bush cannot do). Or at least there is a precedent that they can.

If we as Democrats agree that Bush really has a declaration of war (or a successor who, believe it or not, could be worse), I'm afraid of what he might say he is consitutionally justified in doing. We could be looking at a very slippery slope.

Fortunately, other than Biden, I haven't heard any other senator or high-level Democrat say that there has been a declaration of war. And no one here has quoted any. I would be very curious to hear what the others have to say on the subject. LOL--I'd write my own, but they're both rubber-stamp Repubs. In fact, one of them (Roberts) has already given his "blessing" to the warrentless wire-taps.

[wyldwolf]

16. they're actually one and the same now

A declaration of war by the United States is the statement of purpose traditionally requested by the President of the United States and granted by Congress to engage military force against another nation.
Since World War II, the decision-making power of Congress to declare war has been voluntarily limited to issuing authorizations of force.

In fact, the US has only "declared war" eleven times - and 8 of those times were against nations in WWI and WWII.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Why don't you re-read the Constitution

and stop making excuses for the Bush dictatorship and its collaborators in both parties!

Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to... declare war

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8


IWR was not a declaration of war!

[wyldwolf]

15. I've read the constitution

and stop with your little socialist revolutionary act.

A declaration of war by the United States is the statement of purpose traditionally requested by the President of the United States and granted by Congress to engage military force against another nation.
Since World War II, the decision-making power of Congress to declare war has been voluntarily limited to issuing authorizations of force.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. And I'm not saying I agree. But facts are facts. Congress hasn't "declared war" in over 60 years but has given authorizations for the use of force. The fact that congress didn't formally declare war in those instances becomes a matter of symantics since the declaration of war is Congress granting permission to wage war and so is authorization to use force.

[MadisonProgressive]

19. They didn't declare war and we are not at war.

When you are at war it's an all out, anything goes, survival of the fitest, life-altering state. If it wasn't for the yellow magnets on cars, you wouldn't even know a 'war' was going on. And the War On terror(tm) is not a war either - it's an ad campaign.

Using force <> War

[wyldwolf]

21. From the official "MadisonProgressive Dictionary."

[MadisonProgressive]

23. Just my personal observations.

But thanks for plugging my dictionary! Available at amazon.com and priced to MOVE!:bounce:

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Let me ask you this

Has any prior president of either party, when given a Congressional authorization to use force, assumed that it gave him all the powers of a declaration of war?

Bush has, and still does. If they're the same, then he has that power. If they're not the same he doesn't. To me, it's as simple as that.

[wyldwolf]

32. show me a link that gives the difference between the two

[wiley]

12. What does IWR stand for?

Weren't there some reporting requirements as well? And why doesn't someone introduce a new resolution? The Pukes are using this as a legal argument for a corrupt, imperil presidency. Instead of discussing immediate withdrawl, why not craft a new resolution? Put the Pukes on record as agreeing that they reaffirm their support of ceding their authority and the civil rights of Americans to * and Cheney's efforts to install a white, male, Christian, Republican, ruling class, corporate but* sucker as King.

[librechik]

17. Iraq War Resolution n/t

[karynnj]

28. This is not even about the IWR but the earlier authorization

re the war on terror. (Much earlier and that's when this started

[MadisonProgressive]

18. There is no "equivalent"... constitutionally!

It's either in the Constitution or it's not - and it's NOT! Unless this has been determined by a court, which it hasn't!

[wyldwolf]

20. Some would disagree

A declaration of war by the United States is the statement of purpose traditionally requested by the President of the United States and granted by Congress to engage military force against another nation.

Since World War II, the decision-making power of Congress to declare war has been voluntarily limited to issuing authorizations of force.

In fact, the US has only "declared war" eleven times - and 8 of those times were against nations in WWI and WWII.

Article I, Section 8 gives brief mention of declaring war. In fact, it merely says (among other things), The Congress shall have Power To Declare War. It also states The Congress shall have Power To To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

...and a myriad of other things.

Ever hear Congress making formal declarations of establishing post offices? Ever hear congress declaring they're going to pay some debt? No, they just vote on it and do it. Congress issuing an authorization of force to a President is "Declaring War," but without any grandiose ceremony. In doing so, Congress does it's constitutional duty.

[MadisonProgressive]

25. Not so!

Nanny Nanny Boo Boo! :crazy:

[tn-guy]

26. I have to agree with wyldwolf

If one reads the actual text of the IWR, the purpose and intent is clear and unambiguous. The congress gave a lot of "where as's" listing the rationale and finished up by authorizing the use of force. If that's not a constitutionally acceptable declaration of war, I don't know what would be.

I guess some people think the actual text has to include the phrase "we're declaring war now". Did the voting rights act include the phrase "we hereby protect voting rights"? Of course not. The intent was plain and well within the authority of the congress. Any senator or representative that tries to claim the IWR was not a declaration of war is either a liar or a fool.

[robbedvoter]

24. Not the first idiotic thing Biden says. See this for instance:

Rice Takes Center Stage at Confirmation Hearing
Democrats Press Nominee on Iraq
By ANNE GEARAN,
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050116...
.
Biden also praised Rice, but noted that "relations with many of our oldest friends are quite frankly scraping the bottom right now.''
However, Biden also had blunt advice for European critics: "I have one simple message: Get over it. Get over it. President Bush is our president for the next four years. So get over it and start to act in your interest, Europe.''..........

[TankLV]

27. Exactly why I take EVERYTHING that repuke asskissing asswipe says with a

a grain of salt.

He's just another fucking DINO like LIEberman and zellout.

He's lost any respect he may have once had.

[PassingFair]

29. That's it. I declare war against Biden. ............ n/t

[Toots]

31. What country are we at war with?

I don't think Iraq qualifies because the gvernment there is friendly with America and we are not engaged with any uniformed troops. How can we declare war on the civilians of the world?

[Skittles]

33. to you same two trolls who vote in every DU pol

FUCK YOU

[wyldwolf]

36. ya know, those "trolls" probably vote that way for one of three reasons

1. to protest a poll where a viable and factual option isn't available.
2. to get the exact response they got from you.
3. they actually believe what they vote for and, because the option was available, took it.

I didn't vote.