From: "Robert G Lewis" 

So why did they in fact reference the act ?

Until it is declared unconstitutional it should be considered constitutional.

Bob Lewis

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:43b16d4a{at}w3.nls.net...
> The War Powers Act is unconstitutional.  Every President has maintained
> this
> fact since it was passed, and they are correct.
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:43b166d5{at}w3.nls.net...
>> 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