Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 - Unconstitutional?

  1. #1

    Default Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 - Unconstitutional?

    Read the text of the Authorization for Use of Military Force act of 2001. This is the law that supposedly authorizes Obama's authority to target anyone who was deemed as supporting the terrorists acts of 9/11.

    However, couldn't this law itself be deemed unconstitutional?

    Authorization for Use of Military Force
    September 18, 2001
    Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
    107th CONGRESS


    JOINT RESOLUTION
    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

    Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

    Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

    Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

    Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
    (b) 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    Approved September 18, 2001.
    Last edited by runamuck; 10-14-2011 at 08:36 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Thread title is misleading. It was 2001 not 2011.
    Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonySutton View Post
    Thread title is misleading. It was 2001 not 2011.
    Ugh, I'm sorry. Meant 2001

  5. #4

    Default

    Reinforcing once again why we should have a declaration of war instead of authorization of force. They want to call it a war so they can run it like a war but they don't want to have a declared war so it falls under the rules of war such as the Geneva convention.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  6. #5

    Default

    Mods - can you please update thread-title to be "2001" instead of "2011"

  7. #6

    Default

    Anyone? This is the act they're saying justifies the legality of the Al Alwaki assassination. Couldn't the act itself be unconstitutional?

  8. #7

    Default

    Of course it's unconstitutional. Congress, and ONLY Congress, has the power to declare war.

    That would be like Congress passing a law saying "We know that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, however the President may, in times of national emergency, suspend this amendment and search anyone whenever s/he damn well pleases" etc. etc.

    Be careful when you pry my gun from my cold dead hands, the barrel will be hot.

  9. #8

    Default

    If you think that act is unconstitutional, read this horse sh!t h ttp://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

  10. #9

    Default

    I'm glad Hamilton lost that duel.. He deserved it for the ammo he gave today's "interepretation" of executive authority.

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,762

    Default

    It's likely unconstitutional. Lots of laws are. Congress passed it almost unanimously. I think there was one no vote and it wasn't Ron Paul. Did anyone in the post 9/11 times expect it to be used against US citizens. Probably not. Does it authorize military force against citizens? As it's worded it didn't exclude it. Should we look to change it? Yeah I think it's time to. Should we impeach Obama for using the powers congress gave the president. I don't think we should, if you go down that road you could have impeached most modern presidents. I also don't think it's wise to complain too loudly about something you voted for. I think we should look to fix the root cause of the problem. We have terrorist attacks because of failed foreign policy. We aren't wanted in the middle east, it's time to bring all the troops home now. Only one candidate will do that. It's one of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. I believe in his foreign policy.

  12. #11
    Member flightlesskiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    NM, the unenchanted part
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    the AUMF, just like the WPA, is in direct violation of the Constitution.

    just CONgress' way of taking the ball out of their court.

    and the prezidenté's way of declaring himself to be king.

    and SCROTUS' way of being the referee that refuses to show up to the game. and even if they did show up, they'd blatantly rule against the Constitution.

    and the sleeping majority continuing on in their blissful, comfortable slumber.

    all in the name of security.

    nothing new here in the USA (f*ck yeah!).

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    It's likely unconstitutional. Lots of laws are. Congress passed it almost unanimously. I think there was one no vote and it wasn't Ron Paul.
    It was Barbara Lee believe it or not:

    She "warned her colleagues to be 'careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target.'"[8] Lee explained "It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events—anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long- term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration.... The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from further attack and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara...e_against_AUMF
    My 2016 prediction: Hillary Clinton will NOT run for president.

    Rand Paul 2016






« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •