Does Congress have to approve a war with Iran?

Does anyone know? A majority of people in Congress have flip-flopped on allowing Bush to go to war with Iraq, so why on Earth would they approve another war doomed to fail?

Or does this all fall under the "War On Terror" which need be approved only once and is evergreen?

Peace

Originally posted by Dr Love

Or does this all fall under the "War On Terror" which need be approved only once and is evergreen?

Peace

I think designating the Iranian Revolutionary guards as "terrorists", is an attempt to put them under the umbrella of "war on terror".

Will it fly?

We will have to wait and see.

[edit on 2007/8/15 by JacKatMtn]

They do not need congress in this plan. All they do is claim Iran is harboring
terrorists, and then Bush can just say it is time to end this terrorism.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Congressional approval, which in essence is the approval of the people, can be totally circumvented because of a label.

Peace

I believe that only a formal declaration of war requires congressional approval.
Isnt that the reason that the action in Viet Nam was labeled a "police action" and not a war?
There are hordes of lawyers in the White House, just like everywhere else and if there is a loophole anywhere, it'll be found.

Constitution of th United States, Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power...To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captives on Land and Water."

The War in Iraq is completely UN-Constitutional. Any War with Iran or reprisal against said, must be ordained by Congress.

But, seeing as Bush already got away with it once and Congress seems to regard the Constitution as merely as set of guidelines-it will probably happen the same way.



[edit on 15-8-2007 by passenger]

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
Art. 1 Sec. 8

(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.
source - War Powers Resolution of 1973 Sec. 2 (b)

Yes, Congress has to declare war, per the Constitution. However, there are rules that allow the President to initiate conflicts for specified amounts of time.

(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 Untied 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,
source - War Powers Resolution of 1973 Sec. 5 (b)

Yes, Infoholic, except that the War Powers Act itself is extra-Constitutional.

The sixty day provision should fall under the Letters of Marque and Reprisal provision. Traditionally a way of punishing an Enemy, without officialy declaring war. Pirates were great for this and I suppose Haliburton could have been the modern equivalent. THey couldn't even bother to do that much.

Are the rules different if we goad the Iranians into declaring war on us?

Peace

I believe the last war "officially declared by congress" was WWII. Close to 100,000 American soldiers and literally millions of other folks have died in numerous undelcared wars since then. So what do you think?

I think the short answer is "no". The President (Bush or the next President) can order an attack on Iran whenever he (or she) wants to and deal with Congress later.

Originally posted by passenger
Yes, Infoholic, except that the War Powers Act itself is extra-Constitutional.

You'll hear no quarrel from me there. I agree.

However, Congress did pass the law that allowed such acts by the President. Which is where we find the fault for the ongoing fighting in Iraq, today. I refer to it as "fighting" since an official declaration of war was never authorized by Congress. What Congress did, was reauthorize an act in accordance with this resolution.

Here's the open ended "War on Terror" authorization:

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

And the open ended authorization for Military Force in Iraq:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
source

Both are well within the power of Congress to establish, however it is this spineless "lame duck" Congress, with 14% approval ratings, that refuse to grow some hair and reverse their mistakes... which again, would be well withing their power.

Originally posted by Dr Love
Are the rules different if we goad the Iranians into declaring war on us?

If Iranians were to declare war on the US... the US wouldn't go to Iran. A declaration of war from Iran wouldn't be an invitation. That's not the way it works.

I believe the last war "officially declared by Congress" was WWII. Since the end of that war, almost 100,000 American soldiers and literally millions of other folks have died in several undeclared wars. So what do you think?

I think the simple answer is no. President Bush (or the next President) can start a war with Iran whenever he (or she) chooses to and Congress will do nothing about it. In reality, what can Congress do? They can cut the funds for the troops to force the President to bring them home but that is political suicide. Should a member of Congress commit political suicide to do what they think is right? Of course, but name even one that has that much integrity.

Originally posted by Infoholic
However, Congress did pass the law that allowed such acts by the President. Which is where we find the fault for the ongoing fighting in Iraq, today. I refer to it as "fighting" since an official declaration of war was never authorized by Congress. What Congress did, was reauthorize an act in accordance with this resolution.

Yes, a weasly, slimy, run-around abrogation of their powers. Bush wanted to p*** on the Constitution and they held it on the ground for him while he did. It illustrates my point precisely, (and methinks you would agree Infoholic) that it shouldn't be done but that it will be done.

It brings to mind a joke(?) I read, written/related by a Soviet defector:
A man is brought to trial in the Soviet Union. The man immediately protests, stating that under the Constitution of the Soviet Union (yes, they had one too), he had the right to be represented by an attorney, due process, etc. The Judge looks at him and says " Please, this a very serious issue Sir, don't bring the Constitution into it."
Not very funny now.


[edit on 15-8-2007 by passenger]

Bush do not need the stinky congress or the good for nothing constitution to make wars . . . he already has given himself enough powers to be and do as Cheney wishes.

Originally posted by passenger
Constitution of th United States, Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power...To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captives on Land and Water."

The War in Iraq is completely UN-Constitutional. Any War with Iran or reprisal against said, must be ordained by Congress.

But, seeing as Bush already got away with it once and Congress seems to regard the Constitution as merely as set of guidelines-it will probably happen the same way.



[edit on 15-8-2007 by passenger]

I am not so sure that this is a completely accurate statement anymore. It USED to be that way. However I am pretty sure that once they are labeled as "terrorist" the rules change drastically.

Originally posted by section8citizen
I am not so sure that this is a completely accurate statement anymore. It USED to be that way. However I am pretty sure that once they are labeled as "terrorist" the rules change drastically.

OK. So, where is it in the Constitiution about "terrorists"? Answer: Nowhere

So, where does the Constitution give the right to make rules and circumvent itself in the case of "terrorism"? Answer: Nowhere.

So, where do Bush and this pathetic Congress get the right to do what they are doing? Answer: You tell me

President Truman set a precedent by sending troops to Korea under the guise of fighting Communism and containment without the need for Congressional approval for war to send a military force, this was followed by other Presidents since then. Unless Congress make extreme radical changes that prevents the Commander in Chief from sending troops either it be Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan under the pretext of peacekeeping, humanitarian, war on terrorism, communism... this will continue.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by deltaboy]

ENough of the full-blown war talk. Does he need approval to launch a strike on Iran as that is much more likely?

Originally posted by passenger
So, where does the Constitution give the right to make rules and circumvent itself in the case of "terrorism"?

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

And...

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

And...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

All examples taken from the U.S. Constitution, Article 1.


Why do you think Congress has such a low approval rating? They keep playing straight to Bush's hand, that's why.