PDA

View Full Version : War Powers Resolution




Philhelm
03-21-2011, 12:58 PM
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp (Directed to from Library of Congress)


War Powers Resolution
Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(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.

CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and 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.

REPORTING
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL
SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.

W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.

I figured that it would be a good idea to post this. Are there any other laws out there which could hurt our case about the Constitutionality of the current engagement with Libya? People have mentioned FDR, treaties overriding the Constitution, etc., but I think we need to come to a rock-solid consensus on these issues from a purely legal standpoint. Most of us aren't legal scholars, but I think it would be a good idea to help each other get educated, and pursue the truth, on this issue.

FrankRep
03-21-2011, 01:06 PM
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

- Senator Barack Obama
December 20, 2007


SOURCE:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/


Rep. Justin Amash Calls Libya Action Unconstitutional
http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/6766-rep-amash-calls-libya-action-unconstitutional

Philhelm
03-21-2011, 01:14 PM
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

- Senator Barack Obama
December 20, 2007

I'm aware of Obama's earlier statement on such an issue, but I'm wondering if there is anything that would allow the President to legally do this, even if we don't like it. Before I contact my representatives, I want to make sure that my ducks are all in a row, and that there is no unanticipated opening which would leave me vulnerable.

LibertyEagle
03-21-2011, 01:16 PM
I'm aware of Obama's earlier statement on such an issue, but I'm wondering if there is anything that would allow the President to legally do this, even if we don't like it. Before I contact my representatives, I want to make sure that my ducks are all in a row, and that there is no unanticipated opening which would leave me vulnerable.

They will claim that the War Powers Act gives the authority to the President, but it does not. At least that is what my Congressman's office threw at me.

Philhelm
03-21-2011, 01:19 PM
They will claim that the War Powers Act gives the authority to the President, but it does not. Read it first and be ready.

So, I have not misinterpreted anything in it. Are there any other "legal" arguments that could be used to defend the action?

FrankRep
03-21-2011, 01:22 PM
About.com: On Going to War (http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2005/11/14/on-going-to-war.htm)


The Resolution directs the President to "... consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances ..." Note -- this resolution authorizes Presidential action when hostilities are imminent. This was not the case for Iraq I or Iraq II, nor was it for Kosovo.


Wikipedia: War Powers Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution)


The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.


Libya was not a threat to the United States.

LibertyEagle
03-21-2011, 01:23 PM
So, I have not misinterpreted anything in it. Are there any other "legal" arguments that could be used to defend the action?

Not that I can think of, unless they attempt to throw the UN's resolution at you. But, you already know how to counter that.

My Congressman's office kept telling me that the President had the authority per the War Powers Act to send our troops to war for 60 days without Congressional approval. But, that he had to notify them and apparently he has. (I just talked to someone in Congressman Paul's office and he says the notification has not happened yet.). That is bullshit of course, at least per my reading of the War Powers Act. But, it also is the interpretation that has been sold to the American people in a lot of articles over the years.

You may want to call Congressman Paul's office and chat with an aide. They're always quite helpful, whether you are a constituent or not. :)

The aide in Congressman Paul's office agreed that no, not even the unconstitutional War Powers Act was followed. We were not attacked, nor was there an imminent threat.

tekkierich
03-21-2011, 01:31 PM
I have had that argument a few times in the past few days. I always tell them that the UN cannot compel our government to pay it's dues let alone conflict. Our government must follow it's own processes to perform any action.

I am in the minority on this board, but I actually LIKE the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It passed over the president's veto, and it is the greatest example of the legislative branch asserting it's power in modern times. Whether you call it a declaration of War, or authorizing force, essentially the same thing happens, congress must vote before we go to war. This is so ridiculously important in a representative democracy, I don't understand how anyone can argue against it.

Philhelm
03-21-2011, 01:34 PM
Not that I can think of, unless they attempt to throw the UN's resolution at you. But, you already know how to counter that.

Aside from the obvious arguments which would likely fall on deaf ears, what was the U.N. law which had stated that member nations could not go to war against other member nations in domestice matters? I'd like to be able to cite that...just in case.


My Congressman's office kept telling me that the President had the authority per the War Powers Act to send our troops to war for 60 days without Congressional approval. But, that he had to notify them and apparently he has. (I just talked to someone in Congressman Paul's office and he says the notification has not happened yet). That is bullshit of course, at least per my reading of the War Powers Act. But, it also is the interpretation that has been sold to the American people in a lot of articles over the years.

Yes, it's time to start exposing the truth rather than common belief.


You may want to call Congressman Paul's office and chat with an aide. They're always quite helpful, whether you are a constituent or not. :)

Not a bad idea!

LibertyEagle
03-21-2011, 01:35 PM
I have had that argument a few times in the past few days. I always tell them that the UN cannot compel our government to pay it's dues let alone conflict. Our government must follow it's own processes to perform any action.

I am in the minority on this board, but I actually LIKE the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It passed over the president's veto, and it is the greatest example of the legislative branch asserting it's power in modern times. Whether you call it a declaration of War, or authorizing force, essentially the same thing happens, congress must vote before we go to war. This is so ridiculously important in a representative democracy, I don't understand how anyone can argue against it.

Two words.

It's unconstitutional.

tekkierich
03-21-2011, 01:40 PM
A debate for another time perhaps. Bottom line, neither the "Constitutional view" (Declaration of War) or this law (authorization of force) has been followed. This is unprecedented, and the legislative branch need to assert it's self here, or forever lose even the limited measures outlines in the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

tekkierich
03-21-2011, 01:42 PM
Obama now has an illegal war of his own.

nate895
03-21-2011, 01:58 PM
The idea that the War Powers Resolution gives the President the authority to do this is the height of ignorance and double-talk. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed specifically to prevent this kind of unilateral action on the part of the President. Why? Because when the President chooses to unilaterally go to war, there is not much you can do to stop it, even if everyone in Congress wanted to do so with every fiber of their being. We committed an act of war. Wars are hard to stop. If the country we attacked actually had military capabilities, they would continue to wage war even if Congress said "we don't like this." It basically would give the President a backdoor to war.

The President is basically demanding the authority to wage total war, which would be a concept foreign to the Founders. If he can wage war against Libya, why couldn't the President order a war against Russia or China, who actually have the capability to resist and even take the war to our own shores? That would force us to wage a total war without ever getting a choice, or even necessarily having a reason. It might not be a likely scenario, but it should not even be a legally possible scenario.

sailingaway
03-21-2011, 02:06 PM
First of all, it is my conviction that the war powers act is unconstitutional attempt to delegate powers that are nondelagatable.

Second, if you accept the war powers act, the key sentence is this one because without jurisdiction to go in the rest doesn't come up:


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.

None of these three situations apply, and we are acting far beyond 'headquarters' staffing by firing missiles, plus I'm pretty sure 'operation' was intended to refer to the military operation, not for example, the existence of the UN.

AFPVet
03-21-2011, 02:08 PM
"If you give the government an inch, they will take a mile." They will run away with the general welfare clause and anything else they can get their hands on including the emergency war powers.

sailingaway
03-21-2011, 02:10 PM
"If you give the government an inch, they will take a mile." They will run away with the general welfare clause and anything else they can get their hands on including the emergency war powers.

"Give the government a cookie...."

nate895
03-21-2011, 02:15 PM
First of all, it is my conviction that the war powers act is unconstitutional attempt to delegate powers that are nondelagatable

It doesn't. The entire point of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was to stop the President from unilaterally waging war. The law only says that the President can wage war if we are actually attacked or the threat of attack is immediate, but it still forces the President to go to Congress to wage war beyond the immediate protection of our sovereign interests. This basically recognizes the President has the authority to tell the Armed Forces that they can shoot back. That's about it. Without that authority, it would have been unlawful for the Navy to shoot back when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and that's just ridiculous.

AFPVet
03-21-2011, 02:31 PM
They've done a lot of unconstitutional things.... Firearm laws are supposedly illegal....

cswake
03-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Obama now has an illegal war of his own.

Nope, all according to the letter of the law:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya


For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.
Nevermind that the War Powers is unlawful and no one can challenge him on what is National Security.

tropicangela
03-22-2011, 10:23 AM
Nope, all according to the letter of the law:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya

Nevermind that the War Powers is unlawful and no one can challenge him on what is National Security.

So he is using national security and foreign policy interests as his excuse, and saying he is only providing the report so that it's consistent with the War of Powers Resolution. What a _______.

BrendenR
03-23-2011, 01:10 PM
So he is using national security and foreign policy interests as his excuse, and saying he is only providing the report so that it's consistent with the War of Powers Resolution. What a _______.

Especially since it is clear it is NOT consistent with the Act.

The Act DOES require notification of congress.

The Act ALSO requires an attack or imminent attack upon America, or an act of congress/delaration of war. How convenient he can just ignore this part of the act.

Philhelm
03-23-2011, 01:20 PM
Especially since it is clear it is NOT consistent with the Act.

The Act DOES require notification of congress.

The Act ALSO requires an attack or imminent attack upon America, or an act of congress/delaration of war. How convenient he can just ignore this part of the act.

We need to hammer away with this. A lot of people think that the WPR authorizes what Obama has done.

axiomata
03-23-2011, 06:34 PM
The illegality of this war is even more flagrant than Bush's. That's hard to believe.

Lucille
03-23-2011, 07:20 PM
@NewsSlayer Napolitano: There's a Reason Obama Isn't Calling Efforts in Libya a "War" http://bit.ly/fTMD06

BrendenR
03-23-2011, 07:26 PM
So the argument I am now hearing is that the UN Security Council decision qualifies as statutory authorization.

Anyone been able to address that?

nate895
03-23-2011, 07:48 PM
So the argument I am now hearing is that the UN Security Council decision qualifies as statutory authorization.

Anyone been able to address that?

If it is, we're screwed. That's all I have to say.

axiomata
03-24-2011, 01:36 PM
Here's an informative Blog post on the original meaning of the warmaking clause.

http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2011/03/the-constitution-and-lybiamike-ramsey.html



Every major figure from the founding era who commented on the matter said that the Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power to commit the nation to hostilities.* Notably, this included not only people with reservations about presidential power, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but also strong advocates of the President’s prerogatives, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.* As President, Washington on several occasions said that he could not undertake offensive military actions without Congress’ approval.* Hamilton is especially significant, because his views on the need for a strong executive went far beyond those of his contemporaries.* Yet Hamilton made it very clear that he read the Constitution not to allow the President to begin a war – as he put it at one point, “it belongs to Congress only, to go to war.”* (References are found in my article “Textualism and War Powers,” 69 U. Chicago L. Rev. 1543 (2002), in part I.A).

Matt Collins
03-30-2011, 09:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Cvs1wkOrY&feature=player_embedded



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLY19PnY2m8&feature=player_embedded#at=44



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5MgwXkVhs&feature=player_embedded