Pelosi to Bush: You're not the decider on Iran

[Dos Equis]

Separation of powers dispute.  Seems pretty clear to me that Pelosi is wrong.

Pelosi to Bush: You're not the decider on Iran

February 16, 2007
BY DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.
Pelosi (D-Calif.) noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran ''and I take him at his word.''

At the same time, she said, ''I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.''
 . . .

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/260047,CST-NWS-iran16.article

[ribonucleic]

Seems pretty clear to me that Pelosi is wrong.

United States Constitution - Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have power...

To declare war.

Which part of that seems vague to you? 

Though I'm sure Alberto "Torture" Gonzales will be happy to point out that this doesn't specifically prohibit the President from doing the same.  And besides, he won't be declaring war - he'll just be committing it! All perfectly legal.

No Constitutional crisis here, folks. Go back to seeing if Britney's divorce settlement has been reached yet.

[240 is Back]

Separation of powers dispute.  Seems pretty clear to me that Pelosi is wrong.

God, you annoy the piss out of me. 


Can you please pick up a middle school "social studies" book?


Shit man, every time I wipe my ass I look at the tissue and realize it contains more knowledge on these issues than you do.

[Mr. Intenseone]

United States Constitution - Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have power...

To declare war.

Which part of that seems vague to you? 

Though I'm sure Alberto "Torture" Gonzales will be happy to point out that this doesn't specifically prohibit the President from doing the same.  And besides, he won't be declaring war - he'll just be committing it! All perfectly legal.

No Constitutional crisis here, folks. Go back to seeing if Britney's divorce settlement has been reached yet.

I don't recall anyone actually declaring war!

[Dos Equis]

United States Constitution - Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have power...

To declare war.

Which part of that seems vague to you? 

Nothing at all.  Now in which of the following conflicts did Congress declare war:

Iraq in 2003
Afghanistan in 2001
Kuwait/Iraq in 1990

There is that whole "Commander in Chief" thing in the Constitution in Article II, Section 2.  

[youandme]

No Constitutional crisis here, folks. Go back to seeing if Britney's divorce settlement has been reached yet.

It's Anna Nicole coverage this week bro, if we decided to go at it with Iran, it would be back page news.

[OzmO]

Obviously a grey area huh folks?


I think Commander and Chief is a war time thing.

Declaring war is a congressional thing.


BB,  it's true we have gone to war 3 times in recent history without congress.

Maybe if we stuck to that we wouldn't get into stupid wars like this one in Iraq.

[240 is Back]

THe point is that Bush is very ready to declare war (and the Rus Parl member said it would be Mar 28th).

Did you guys hear the press conference?  "I don't know if they are behind it, but I sitll intend to do something about it".

They fear the man will strike Iran before he leaves office, without congressional approval.  SOme here will endorse it because they'd endorse anyting as long as it has the Bush seal of approval.  Those people trust their daddy.

[Dos Equis]

God, you annoy the piss out of me. 


Can you please pick up a middle school "social studies" book?


Shit man, every time I wipe my ass I look at the tissue and realize it contains more knowledge on these issues than you do.

LOL.   

[Dos Equis]

Obviously a grey area huh folks?


I think Commander and Chief is a war time thing.

Declaring war is a congressional thing.


BB,  it's true we have gone to war 3 times in recent history without congress.

Maybe if we stuck to that we wouldn't get into stupid wars like this one in Iraq.

Not just three recent conflicts, but Haiti, Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama, and probably many others I cannot think of at the moment.  Clearly, the Commander in Chief's powers are not limited to a post-declaration of war by Congress.  That hasn't been our history at all. 

[240 is Back]

Not just three recent conflicts, but Haiti, Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama, and probably many others I cannot think of at the moment.  Clearly, the Commander in Chief's powers are not limited to a post-declaration of war by Congress.  That hasn't been our history at all. 

It's been our entire history under GWB.

He's still the President, ya know?

[ieffinhatecardio]

Obviously a grey area huh folks?


I think Commander and Chief is a war time thing.

Declaring war is a congressional thing.


BB,  it's true we have gone to war 3 times in recent history without congress.

Maybe if we stuck to that we wouldn't get into stupid wars like this one in Iraq.

OK, so it's been established that Congress hasn't declared War for any of our recent Wars but doesn't the President still need approval of Congress in order to send troops and start a skirmish? Does he have carte blanche to start a "War" as long as it's not declared a "War" by Congress? Perhaps a little clarity will help.

Ah hell, I'll do some research.

[Dos Equis]

It's been our entire history under GWB.

He's still the President, ya know?

Wrong again.

Iraq/Afghanistan = Dubya
Yugoslavia, Haiti = Clinton
Panama (Just Cause) and Desert Storm = Bush Sr.
Grenada = Reagan

In none of these military actions did Congress declare war.

[ribonucleic]

That hasn't been our history at all. 

Tragically so. And, IMHO, an impeachable offense each and every time.

[Fury]

THe point is that Bush is very ready to declare war (and the Rus Parl member said it would be Mar 28th).

Did you guys hear the press conference?  "I don't know if they are behind it, but I sitll intend to do something about it".

They fear the man will strike Iran before he leaves office, without congressional approval.  SOme here will endorse it because they'd endorse anyting as long as it has the Bush seal of approval.  Those people trust their daddy.

I don't understand this. Mr fucking conspiracy theory with his thousands of pages of evidence regarding 9/11 and now you're taking the word of some noname Russian Parliament member on when we invade Iran? It's pretty embarrassing that you seem to think you know the goings on in this world from your trailer in nowheresville, Florida.

[ribonucleic]

I don't understand this. Mr fucking conspiracy theory with his thousands of pages of evidence regarding 9/11 and now you're taking the word of some noname Russian Parliament member on when we invade Iran? It's pretty embarrassing that you seem to think you know the goings on in this world from your trailer in nowheresville, Florida.

    Also sprach BerzerkFury!!   

Sorry. I like both you guys. But that was really funny. 

[tu_holmes]

In this instance, Pelosi is 100% wrong.

GWB, and believe me, I can't stand the guy... But, Pelosi is wrong.

Here's why.

GWB does not need an "act of war" declaration by the US Congress to move troops and attack another Land.

Vietnam was not a "war"... Congress did not declare war and therefore it was a "Police Action". The same goes for other conflicts we've had (a list is earlier in the thread)

The President being Commander in Chief of the armed forces CAN order an attack on whomever he so chooses.

Should he do this and people feel it is an "illegal" act... he can then be impeached...

Pelosi while she may not like the fact, can not deny that GWB is the President of the United States (For better and in most instances "worst"), and by that power he can direct military action on anyone he so chooses.

If Pelosi doesn't like it, she should file impeachment proceedings if "W" decides to attack Iran.

That's how it works guys... You may not like him, but in this case... Pelosi is just wrong about what he can and can't do.

It makes me wonder... If she's Speaker of the House and she does not know this... what does this say about her qualifications?

[ieffinhatecardio]

Powers to declare war.

The decision to go to war is exclusively that of Congress

Sadly, it seems we've reached the point where the Constitution is no longer relevant on matters of a president's war-making powers. Presidents, the Congress and the courts have made going to war, once a serious constitutional issue, and a purely political question.

As a result, in the last half century, the war powers clause of the Constitution has become a nullity, if not a quaint relic. While conservatives often insist on following the letter of the Constitution on most issues, on matters of war they ignore it.

That's a disgrace, because the Framers of the Constitution carefully laid out the decision-making process for war. Pursuant to the document, war is a decision to be made exclusively by the representatives of the people -- the Congress. Only Congress is authorized to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make the rules for these armed forces. There is nothing vague or unclear about the language in Article I, ¤ 8, clauses 11-16.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/

It's a good read, very interesting. Obviously it's CNN so keep that in mind if you decide to check out the site.

[Dos Equis]

In this instance, Pelosi is 100% wrong.

GWB, and believe me, I can't stand the guy... But, Pelosi is wrong.

Here's why.

GWB does not need an "act of war" declaration by the US Congress to move troops and attack another Land.

Vietnam was not a "war"... Congress did not declare war and therefore it was a "Police Action". The same goes for other conflicts we've had (a list is earlier in the thread)

The President being Commander in Chief of the armed forces CAN order an attack on whomever he so chooses.

Should he do this and people feel it is an "illegal" act... he can then be impeached...

Pelosi while she may not like the fact, can not deny that GWB is the President of the United States (For better and in most instances "worst), and by that power he can direct military action on anyone he so chooses.

If Pelosi doesn't like it, she should file impeachment proceedings if "W" decides to attack Iran.

That's how it works guys... You may not like him, but in this case... Pelosi is just wrong about what he can and can't do.

It makes me wonder... If she's Speaker of the House and she does not know this... what does this say about her qualifications?

Vietnam is another great example.

[ieffinhatecardio]

In this instance, Pelosi is 100% wrong.

GWB, and believe me, I can't stand the guy... But, Pelosi is wrong.

Here's why.

GWB does not need an "act of war" declaration by the US Congress to move troops and attack another Land.

Vietnam was not a "war"... Congress did not declare war and therefore it was a "Police Action". The same goes for other conflicts we've had (a list is earlier in the thread)

The President being Commander in Chief of the armed forces CAN order an attack on whomever he so chooses.

Should he do this and people feel it is an "illegal" act... he can then be impeached...

Pelosi while she may not like the fact, can not deny that GWB is the President of the United States (For better and in most instances "worst), and by that power he can direct military action on anyone he so chooses.

If Pelosi doesn't like it, she should file impeachment proceedings if "W" decides to attack Iran.

That's how it works guys... You may not like him, but in this case... Pelosi is just wrong about what he can and can't do.

It makes me wonder... If she's Speaker of the House and she does not know this... what does this say about her qualifications?

This sounds like it's a matter of semantics. The President has the power to go to War without the approval of Congress because it's called a Police Action? What constitutes a war then? Common sense would tell you that Vietnam, Desert Storm and Iraq were/are Wars.

[240 is Back]

prez can attack on a very short term emergency basis.

in those small skirmishes, the US has been able to achieve goals in the past.  prez cannot declare a 5 year war without congress, as bush had for afghan and iraq.

no one is buying his iran plan. 

[tu_holmes]

prez can attack on a very short term emergency basis.

in those small skirmishes, the US has been able to achieve goals in the past.  prez cannot declare a 5 year war without congress, as bush had for afghan and iraq.

no one is buying his iran plan. 

We were in Vietnam for 7 years... How is that short term?

[ieffinhatecardio]

What constitutes "very short term emergency basis"? How is that defined?

If that's in fact true how can we be in a "Police Action" for nearly half a decade and not have it declared a War? If it's the job of Congress to demand Bush ask for a Declaration of War then why haven't they? I know they were Republican controlled until recently but that's not really an excuse now is it?

[240 is Back]

congress let them take the funds.  nam only ended when congress cut funding.  congress could have done that minute one by disallowing any money, so white house would have been crippled after 90 days but didn't.

[240 is Back]

What constitutes "very short term emergency basis"? What is that defined?

If that's in fact true how can we be in a "Police Action" for nearly half a decade and not have it declared a War? If it's the job of Congress to demand Bush ask for a Declaration of War then why haven't they? I know they were Republican controlled until recently but that's not really an excuse now is it?

i believe the prez has emergency powers for 90 days.  anyone verify/correct?