In authorizing an invasion in 2002, Congress did not give President Bush a blank check. It explicitly limited the use of force to two purposes: to “defend the national security of the US from the threat posed by Iraq” and “enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.” Full Story »
Posted by Dwight Rousu
Wow -- this takes the Bush administration and its handling of the Iraq war to task from a legal and Constitutional standpoint that's hard to dismiss. Far from the exasperated little rants about the "worst president ever," this actually presents us with some recourse on how the Obama administration can address foreign relations with Iraq, as well as how we can restore the limits that belong on executive power. A truly effective piece.
The two professors of law provide clarity on the constitutional requirement for congressional control of wars, and how bush has put us currently in violation of the constitution.
We need to return to the rule of law, and repudiate the last 8 years of anti-constitutional acts under the rule of a self appointed warlord.
But the Iraqi agreement goes far beyond anything in the traditional SOFAs concluded with close to 100 countries since World War II. Indeed, it goes far beyond any ... More »
Congress authorized the war? Come again? Since when is the US the world body. Its laws start and end at its borders, and Congress never had the power to authorize that war. Hence it has always been illegal. The WMD? There's another one. If the Congress had examined the evidence as it should have the war never would have started. Instead a buch of sociopaths claimed that allegations of WMD were facts and evidence at law. If the journalist could get facts correct at the start maybe there wouldn't be more wars.
The author makes clear that Bush is again is in violation of the Constitution of the United States Of America. But, what else is new?
Does that mean that after Jan. 20th we can all start singing, "When johnny comes marching home again, Hooray, Hooray?
Retrieving Comments
