In Any Case

Bookmark and Share
Posted by

  • Share on Tumblr

A recent OpEd by Mario Cuomo in the Los Angeles Times, What The Constitution Says About Iraq, gave some surprisingly good analysis of how the Iraq war is a direct violation of the constitution. Here’s a few tidbits:

The war happened because when Bush first indicated his intention to go to war against Iraq, Congress refused to insist on enforcement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. For more than 200 years, this article has spelled out that Congress — not the president — shall have “the power to declare war.”

Because the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion, this constitutional mandate was not erased by the actions of timid Congresses since World War II that allowed eager presidents to start wars in Vietnam and elsewhere without a “declaration” by Congress.

Nor were the feeble, post-factum congressional resolutions of support of the Iraq invasion — in 2001 and 2002 — adequate substitutes for the formal declaration of war demanded by the founding fathers.

This is the essence of the unconstitutionality of the war in Iraq – and of every war American politicians have waged since World War II – the last time there was a Constitutionally-mandated declaration of war.

POSITIVE GRANT

The Constitution was written under the principle of “positive grant.” This means that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically listed in the Constitution. This was so important to the founding fathers that they codified it in law as the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As Cuomo made clear, Article I, Section 8 of states that Congress shall have the “power to declare war.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress given authority to transfer that power to any other person or branch. And, nowhere is the president given the power to declare war either.

AUMF. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRANSFER

In 2002, Congress passed the “Authorization to Use Military Force” (AUMF). Although Congress claimed that this legislation “satisfied” the requirements of Article I, Section 8, it did not.

The AUMF was not a declaration of war. It authorized the president to make that decision on his discretion. Thus, the AUMF was a transfer of the war-declaring powers to the excecutive branch – which is clearly not authorized by the Constitution.

In short, what Congress told the president with the passing of the AUMF was “You decide when or if we go to war with Iraq. Just let us know shortly after.”

Therefore, every single member of Congress who voted to transfer this power to the president violated the Constitution. And, the president violated the Constitution by not refusing this illegal transfer of power.

It’s pretty simple. When one branch breaks the law, it’s up to the others to “check” that branch. But, unfortunately, all three branches have been ignoring the plain English of the Constitution for decades.

NO MATTER WHAT

As far as declaring war, James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” summed it up best:

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

It’s in plain English. No right. In any case.

That even includes a situation where the Congress violates the Constitution and transfers its war-declaring powers to the president.

In any case.

No matter what.

Period.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

Support the Tenth Amendment Center!
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

"reality" seems too anxious to call other commenters facts into question. Thankfully, Joel tries to help "reality" understand the difference between voting to "authorize the executive's use of military force", and voting for a "declaration of war". A HUGE difference!

Many "intelligent" Americans (such as "reality" and his ilk) today are totally satisfied to make moronic claims, assertions, and assumptions with limited facts and specious "statistics". Unfortunately, such intellectual laziness is part of what has allowed our nation to slide into the quagmire in which we currently find ourselves floundering.

I fully agree with comments that Congress has abdicated its duties, but not only regarding declarations of war; specific language on apportionment in the Constitution says Congress should have one representative for "X" number of citizens. Decades ago, the Congress agreed to "disregard" that guidance, hence, we have 435 representatives in congress. If the Constitution were "obeyed" today, we'd have 1000 or more representatives. But these are the 2 most egregious offenses that rankle me most.

And by the way, Ron Paul wouldn't improve any of this with his "libertarian" ideology. However, he is the most innocuous of the Re-puke-lican candidates.

*sigh* ... reality. nobody's saying there wasn't a vote. the vote that you are referring to, however, was not a vote to go to war.

please spend some time on wikipedia looking up AUMF and the Iraq Resolution and then come back and read this article, and it will hopefully make sense then. there was never a vote to declare war against Iraq by congress.

Paul... I think you're getting your facts skewed as well. Do you honestly believe what you just said? Let's say I own a pet grooming store. Even under a libertarian government, do you think this would entitle me to declare war on, say, Mauritania on behalf of the united states?

Libertarians do argue for a great deal of personal and economic freedom, however one of the cornerstones of the party is the non-aggression principle. Please at least do some research before posting false truths.

Mark: Ron Paul would make the situation worse. He's a Libertarian at heart - that means he doesn't have a problem with corporations acquiring armies to enforce policies that benefit them.

As of now, the government has a monopoly on force. A Ron Paul presidency would allow private capital to declare war without the annoying middlemen we call "congress."

Epic Fail.

Show proof that there was no vote.

As far as I was aware Congress DID vote to go to war. Most of the Republicans voted for it, and I think the number was some 60% of Democrats also voted.

Next time, get your facts straight.

Exactly why we need Ron Paul in 2008!!!!

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Original post by Tenth Amendment [...]

  2. Order xanax online no prescription….

    Order xanax online. 2mg xanax order. Order xanax with prescription. Xanax mail order. Order prescriptions generic xanax. Order xanax overnight….

  3. Effexor generic….

    Effexor xr 37.5. Effexor xr. Effexor serious side effects….

  4. Buy ambien online cod….

    Ambien buy ambien online starting from per. Buy ambien online order cheap ambien now. Buy ambien online. Buy ambien online cod….