"The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War".
Congress cannot delegate its Constitutional Powers by statute. Nonetheless only # 3 in the War Powers Act might be such a delegation. But this is not circumstance 3 anyway.
I don't believe a Congressional resolution meets the standard for a declaration of war, unless it says it is a declaration of war.
Therefore, Clinton's actions are unconstitutional.
Say all of this recognizing that the U.S. and bourgeoisie violate their own laws all of the time. But revolutionaries employ the better bourgeois laws in arguing for reform, against war etc. To do otherwise , a la Max's post , is ultra-leftist or mock-left in the case of Max's post.
Charles Brown
>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 04/16/99 12:39PM >>>
Jordan Hayes wrote:
>I'm no bomber, but I'll bite: how exactly is he violating the War
>Powers Act? I thought that a) Congress passed a non-binding resolution
>(unanimous - 1) in support of the action and b) it hasn't been 60
>days yet.
>
>This is the first I've heard that there's a violation.
The War Powers Resolution, at <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1541.html>, says:
"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."
A "nonbinding resolution" isn't "specific statutory authorization," is it?
It's up to Congress to do something about this, of course, and I'm well aware that it's entirely normal for the president to kill lots of people on a whim, and I know that imperialists don't need no stinking laws, but since the cruise-missile liberals are generally people very concerned about process, I'm curious how they justify the imperial presidency.
Doug