From: "Robert G Lewis" 

While the effect may be he same I suggest you might actually want to read
the parts of the AUMF  authorizing the use of force then refer to the War
Powers resolution ( which is explicitly referred to in the AUMF) before you
say that the AUMF is a declaration of war.

Bob Lewis

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:43b16369{at}w3.nls.net...
> The people you quote are wrong.  The AUMF is a declaration of war, the
> constitution doesn't require specific language or phrases and neither does
> the Supreme Court.  The people you quote below are wrong (not the first
> time
> for them I'm sure).
>
> Gary
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:43b15a45$2{at}w3.nls.net...
>> http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/beyond_his_powe.html
>>
>> . Congress's September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)
>> According to today's AP article: "The president said the authority to
> bypass
>> the court derived from the Constitution and Congress' vote authorizing
>> the
>> use of military force after the 2001 terror attacks."
Essentially, Bush's
>> argument is that he had the power to ignore a law of Congress based on
>> Congress' Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
>>
>> As Professor Seth Weinberger observes:
>>
>>   Today, we learn from the New York Times that President Bush secretly
>> authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, using the
>> September 2001 resolution that authorized the president to use "all
>> necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
>> persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided" the 9/11
>> attacks. However, this is not a declaration of war. And, in particular,
>> it
>> lacks the crucial language that modern delcarations of war have
>> contained,
>> which states that "all of the resources of the country are
hereby pledged
> by
>> the Congress of the United States." This language is present in the
>> declarations for WWI and II. It is a recognition by Congress that total
> war
>> is in fact total, and may require the president to act domestically in a
>> legislative manner.
>>   Absent such language in a formal declaration of war, I highly doubt
>> that
>> the president's authorization of domestic spying is legal.
>>
>>
>> Professor Peter Swire (law, Ohio St.) argues:
>>
>>   [T]he Administration seems to say that the general Congressional
>> resolution amended [FISA], without anyone realizing it. That approach is
>> contrary to the usual reading of statutes, where there is no "repeal by
>> implication" - you have to say you are repealing a specific statute for
> the
>> repeal to be effective.
>> Marty Lederman argues:
>>   That the AUMF impliedly repealed the well-wrought scheme in FISA, with
> its
>> prohibition on warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. persons (a repeal that
> only
>> the Executive knew about: neither the public, nor even the Congress that
>> enacted the AUMF, was aware that it had performed such radical surgery on
>> the U.S. Code.
>> It is hard to imagine that authorizing military force authorizes the
>> President to disregard a litany of laws at the President's whim. If so,
> the
>> Congress must be extremely careful in authorizing military force in the
>> future, because such authorization would turn over to the President the
>> right to contravene an unspecified number of laws.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:43b15749$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > No, in other words there *IS* a formal declaration of war and its name
> is
>> > AUMF.  The AUMF *IS* a formal declaration of war.  It even says war in
> its
>> > terms.  The constitution does NOT contain any suggested language for a
>> > declaration of war.  It merely says only congress can declare war.  An
>> > AUMF
>> > *IS* a formal declaration of war under the constitution, and the courts
>> > have
>> > so held.  Joe Biden even made this statement that the AUMF *IS* a
>> > declaration of war under the constitution during one of his MSNBC rants
>> > last
>> > week.  This being one of the rare times Biden is actually correct about
>> > something.
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> > news:43b14ea7{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> In other words Bush never sought a FORMAL declaration of war from
>> >> Congress
>> >> because he knew he would never receive it. All this chest beating
> (we're
>> > at
>> >> war) and lessening of our liberties is the paranoid bleating of the
>> >> far
>> >> right sheep of Bush
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
> http://encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/Who_Can_Declare_War_Backgrounde
r_and_Research_Guide.html
>> >> The current president Bush also never sought a formal
declaration of
> war
>> >> from Congress. Instead, he requested, and received, the
authority to
> use
>> >> armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate" to
> defend
>> >> American interests against "the continuing threat
posed by Iraq."
>> >>
>> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>> >> news:43b145ad$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> > You have it already I suspect the AUMF *IS* a
declaration of war.
>> >> > As
>> > far
>> >> > as
>> >> > the Supreme Court is concerned an AUMF fills the
constitutional
>> >> > requirements
>> >> > of a declaration of war.  Those who argue that an AUMF isn't a
>> > declaration
>> >> > of war because it doesn't use the same language as the WWII
> declaration
>> >> > are
>> >> > attempting to draw semantical differences and turn that into a
>> >> > constitutional difference.  They are wrong, and the
courts have so
>> >> > ruled
>> >> > previously during the Vietnam war among others.
>> >> >
>> >> > Gary
>> >> >
>> >> > "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>> >> > news:43b0bc31$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> Really? Please provide a link to the FORMAL
Declaration of War by
>> >> > Congress.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As far as I know the United States has only
FORMALLY declared war
>> >> >> 11
>> >> >> times
>> >> >> in it's history and IRAQ is not part of the 11
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A military engagement as Congress authorized in
2002 is not
> considered
>> > a
>> >> >> formal declaration of war.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> news:43b0b6f5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> > To show that the war on drugs wasn't a
*military* war.  I thought
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > context in the original post was pretty obvious.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It is a war, Congress declared war.  If you
don't like Congress'
>> >> >> > actions
>> >> >> > then campaign for a different point of view
and Congress critters
>> >> >> > who
>> >> > will
>> >> >> > pass a resolution declaring the war over
and rescinding their
>> >> > declaration
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > war/AUMF.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Simple.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:43b0b048$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> You are the one that brought up napalm
and yes we've used it
>> >> >> >> more
>> > than
>> >> > to
>> >> >> >> just clear a battlefield.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And what was your point to bring up
napalm to justify Bush's
>> > mythical
>> >> >> >> war?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes we have a conflict with some nasty
people but in NO way is
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> > justified
>> >> >> >> to declare it a war. Bob's example of a
the 'war on drugs' while
>> >> >> >> not
>> > a
>> >> >> >> military conflict gives us way more
fatalities than your
>> >> >> >> bogeyman
>> > and
>> >> >> >> even
>> >> >> >> it doesn't justify the abuse of liberty
that you espouse..
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:43b0a656$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> > And what's the point?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:43b03e34$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> We use/have used   napalm type
weapons much more than any
>> >> > terrorists.
>> >> >> > Oh
>> >> >> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> >> forgot it's ok as we didn't
sign the 1980 UN convention
> banning
>> >> > those
>> >> >> >> >> weapons.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> news:43b03b9e{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> > We aren't discussing
criminals killing criminals and police
>> >> > killing
>> >> >> >> >> > criminals.  You're
changing subjects.  We were discussing
>> > whether
>> >> >> >> >> > its
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> > war
>> >> >> >> >> > or not, and it isn't a
military war.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Terrorists aren't using
napalming because of some heartfelt
>> >> > ethical
>> >> >> >> >> > concern
>> >> >> >> >> > over that particular
method of clearing a battlefield, so
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> > make
>> >> >> > such
>> >> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> > statement reveals more
about errors in your thinking versus
> us
>> > or
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > terrorists.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> > news:43b036e6{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > When they start
napalming fields and people, then its a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > war.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You'd be surprised
how many are killed every year in the
> drug
>> >> >> > trade --
>> >> >> >> >> >> I'd
>> >> >> >> >> >> bet more than
terrorism. Terrorists never napalmed anyone
> yet
>> >> > btw,
>> >> >> >> > that's
>> >> >> >> >> >> our specialty. :|
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> Bob Comer
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Gary
Britt"  wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> news:43b0202e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > When they start
napalming fields and people, then its a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > war.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robert
Comer"  wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> > message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
news:43af989e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The war
on drugs isn't yet a military conflict.  It
>> > remains
>> >> > a
>> >> >> > law
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
enforcement issue, so not the same as a real war.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> You do know
that the military has been in on the war on
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> drugs,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> don't
>> >> >> >> >> > you
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Gary?  The
national guard has been active for many
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> years
>> >> > looking
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> >> >> > growing
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> pot, not to
mention the fighter jet scrambles for  drug
>> >> > running
>> >> >> >> > planes
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> the coast
guard doing the same on the water...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Bob Comer
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Gary
Britt"  wrote in
> message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
news:43ae8245{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The war
on drugs isn't yet a military conflict.  It
>> > remains
>> >> > a
>> >> >> > law
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
enforcement issue, so not the same as a real war.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
"Geo"  wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> > news:43ae4f98$2{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
does that make it ok to use the same reasoning for
> the
>> > war
>> >> > on
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> drugs?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Geo.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
"Gary Britt"  wrote in
>> > message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
news:43ae3c2a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> The war time threats we face make things
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> different.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> Why surprised?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> "Dave Ings"  wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
news:43ae0c3c{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > Bush may be the President with a capital P, but
> at
>> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > end
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > of
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > day
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> he's
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > just a career politician, which IMHO means he is
>> > more
>> >> > or
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > less
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> untrustworthy
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > and should have parental supervision on
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > sensitive
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > matters.
>> >> >> >> > You
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > seem
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > to
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > a great amount of faith in him, which all things
>> >> >> > considered
>> >> >> >> >> >> > surprises
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > me
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > bit.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > And yes I would offer up the same opinion of
>> > Clinton.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > A
>> >> >> >> > little
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> skepticism
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > goes a long way, sunshine is the best
> disinfectant,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > etc
>> >> >> > etc.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > Regards,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > Dave Ings,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > Toronto, Canada
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > "Gary Britt"  wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > in
>> >> > message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > news:43adffce$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > As judge Posner said, the President would be
>> >> > criminally
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > negligent
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> he
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > NOT
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > instituted this surveillance.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > Gary
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5