From Maxspeak:
Declarations of war should require some kind of super-majority in Congress. At the least, the nation’s leaders should appreciate the need for deep public support for any sort of drastic action. Deep divisions combined with the new dangers to national security that will result from the war are an especially bad mixture, from the standpoint of preserving basic rights. In their wisdom, the Founders gave us a Constitution that stipulates that Congress must vote to declare war.
Congress did vote on this issue, as Daschle affirmed again just the other day in an interview. The record of the vote was 296-133 in the House, and 77-23 in the Senate. A super-majority is defined, at least when I got my political science degree, as 2/3 of the chamber. I will let you go ahead and do the math, since Max apparently can’t.
Terry
What is it about communists, former or otherwise, that leads them to support apparent “super-democratic” measures when they see that carrying idiotic posters (or sending in tanks, as in the old days) won’t win the day for them?
Barney Gumble
Your link doesn’t go to an article that has any quotes by Dashle.
Unless you are referring to the first vote, which was to go after the perpetrators of 9-11. Which ain’t Iraq.
John Cole
Damnit- Either they changed the article or I linked to the wrong one. I will find it again. There was an interview with Daschle the other day in which he stated that there is no need for another resolution on IRaq and that Bush is doing what is required by consulkting and going through the UN. I will find it and post it…
Max Sawicky
To John Cole, “Fact Guy,” not to get too technical but as I recall the vote was not a formal declaration of war.
your pal,
max
John Cole
Whatever Max:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
Then go google Iraq War Resolution and see what you come up with. It is not, as you and Ron Paul, a Declaration of War as has been done in the past, but the intent and design of the resolution is clear.
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
Quit playing games- a super-majority passed the war resolution.
Max Sawicky
Thanks for all the legislative boilerplate. I don’t remember any of that in the Constitution, but I’m no strict constructionist. In fact I think that species is extinct. Just ask Al Gore.
Why do you think, if the resolution was a declaration of war in everything but name, that the Bushies didn’t ask Congress to do the simple thing? And if not then, why not now, or in two weeks? (Not a rhetorical question.)
livin & learnin,
max
John Cole
How bout you just tell me what the war resolution authorized?
Max
What you never said there would be a quiz today. I put a question to you first. You answer mine and I’ll answer yours.
John Cole
I viewed it as a conditional Declaration of War, which gave them the opportunity to follow a path of diplomacy and international pressure if poossible, and if that failed, to conduct war. That is why they did it- so that they could have the support of the US Congress when approaching the UN, not as some end run around the constitution.
John Cole
BTW- Is my comments board screwing up- sometimesyou are appearing as Max, other times as Max Sawicky..
Max
No your comments are not screwed up. I’m just lazy.
You answered your question, not mine, which I will condense to: at the point where the President is ready to let the bombs start dropping in earnest, shouldn’t he ask for a formal declaration of war? Doubtless he would get it, so why not ask?
David Perron
Why? Does a formal declaration actually mean anything more than the authorization did? And if he went ahead and got that, would that make you happy or would you want something more?
In other words, why would/should Bush go back to Congress and ask them to reaffirm what they’ve already affirmed? What’s the utility of that?