Lot of things here, so we'll go from most frivolous to least frivolous.
First, typo: "President Bush very probably wanted to go to war with Iraq immediately by April 2022" should probably be 2002 instead. Though the timeline when Jeb! won the nomination in 2016 and beat Clinton would probably be better than this one, though if we didn't get Dobbs in that timeline it would not be good.
Second, oral vs. digital stimulation: while I understand that the Catholic church hasn't said anything on the topic, I do think there is a qualitative difference between putting your mouth to your spouse's genitals and applying one's fingers to the same area. Maybe I take the teleological view of such things a little too far, but it seems to me like the hand is designed for manipulation and poking around, while the mouth is built for eating, talking, and breathing, though that might just be a post hoc rationalization of my own personal squicks. Even so, I certainly wouldn't accuse someone of sinning for engaging in oral sex.
Third...I'm not entirely convinced that you're right about this being an illegal war, but I'm not convinced that you're wrong. However, at this point, now that it's started I think the best option is to take the path that the Whigs took during the Mexican-American War--that is to say, supporting the success of American arms while decrying the process that caused them to be used in the first place. Then, once the war's over and the Ayatollahs are gone we hold an impeachment and a trial with the *explicit* proviso that the only person who is at risk is POTUS. Because at this point, I think the consequences of stopping this thing before the job is done will be worse than seeing it through to the end.
(Note: lest anyone think I am a partisan on such matters, if they made me dictator and Edward Snowden fell into my hands, I would give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for exposing the NSA's shenanigans, and then have him shot for treason for running to China and Russia afterwards.)
I've always doubted whether AUMF's are in fact a Constitutional exercise of Congress's power to declare war. As a Ron Paul fan back in Bush's term, I was nodding along when I read his speech against the Iraq AUMF: "This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to."
That said, in practice I need to agree you're correct. You make an excellent point that AUMF's (when sufficiently precise) do in fact serve the same role in the public debate. Which, sadly, is lacking here.
I'm praying too that this illegal war will at least bring about good in the end. I agree, it's definitely possible.
Doesn't the war powers resolution specifically say it doesn't authorise anything or add to the president's power? Sot it can't be the thing that authorised repelling invasions or other self-defence.
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces
into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution."
"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."
I think you are correct that Congress thought he had Power #3 already. If they thought this power was new, they would have said, "We are intending to give the President this new power, and we are leaving everything else the same." I also think it's quite likely that the President *did* already have that power immediately from the Constitution.
But, in the alternative, I assume arguendo that Congress at the time was wrong, and that the President actually did *not* actually have Power #3 immediately from the Constitution (even though they believed he did). If that's the case, the War Powers Resolution says, "We are not trying to add anything to his constitutional authority," right before directly adding something to his constitutional authority.
I tend to think that the more specific grant of power is controlling over the more general denial, especially if it becomes clear that Congress was confused about the existing constitutional authority. In that world, I would read 50 USC 1547(d) as restricting expansive readings of 1541(c), but not as nullifying it, or any part of it. I would thus interpret the War Powers Resolution as giving the President new authority to use military force during a "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," but I would construe all those terms as narrowly as possible because of 1547(d).
You make a good point, though, that a different case could be made, and I didn't give any thought to that in the article.
I think general language limiting construction has priority over any inconsistent language, even if specific. Otherwise, no construction clause would ever do anything. That is the entire point of provisions on construction, by their nature they affect the whole thing whose construction they regulate.
Nothing in this resolution means nothing in this resolution, not something. Such language is intended to override any accidental grant of power. It seems to me to be rather strong language, and intended to override any contrary provision.
I would say that a construction clause is of a different kind, not simply a general provision, but it has priority over any substantive provision, because any substantive provision has to be construed according to it.
Then -- assuming arguendo the President has no inherent constitutional authority to defend the nation against attack -- what do you make of 1541(c)? Does 1547(d) just nullify that last power?
When a statute's rule of construction tells me to read a provision a certain way, of course I comply. When a statute's rule of construction tells me to ignore a different provision of the same legislative completely, it makes me think the rule of construction must not mean what it seems to mean.
Let me put it this way (assuming arguendo there is no inherent power): Congress may have been confused or wrong about constitutional authority, but it was not confused about whether it wanted to give the president additional powers.
It did not want to give additional powers, which is why it put in the rule of construction, in case it accidentally appeared to give him additional powers.
The rule of construction is primary (and in this case IMO quite explicit). You have to interpret other provisions in accordance with it.
You are trying to interpret the rule of construction in accordance with the other provisions, which is IMO nonsensical, you can not construe anything without following the rule of construction first. You are attempting to construe the resolution by yourself, and only then apply the rule of construction, while you should only look at it through the rule. Congress did not intend this, and it defeats the point of rules of construction.
Rules of construction are primary, and it is conceptually incoherent to attempt to construe them or harmonise them.
So, yes, it does nullify it. This is precisely the kind of situation Congresss adopted the rule to avoid.
I miss George W. Bush too, James. Of all the U.S. Presidents in my lifetime whom I remember, and Clinton is the first one I remember, GWB is the only one I trusted and whom I thought was doing what he thought actually advanced the common good. I have not had that sense from ANY of his successors, nor from Bill Clinton, his immediate predecessor, either.
And I, too, believe the current Iran War is unjust and illegal and I would have voted for the War Powers resolution and asked my U.S. Senators and Congresswoman to vote for it (thankfully, all 3 of them did so).
I, too, initially supported the Iraq War but now I think the Iraq War was indeed unjust and a mistake.
Lot of things here, so we'll go from most frivolous to least frivolous.
First, typo: "President Bush very probably wanted to go to war with Iraq immediately by April 2022" should probably be 2002 instead. Though the timeline when Jeb! won the nomination in 2016 and beat Clinton would probably be better than this one, though if we didn't get Dobbs in that timeline it would not be good.
Second, oral vs. digital stimulation: while I understand that the Catholic church hasn't said anything on the topic, I do think there is a qualitative difference between putting your mouth to your spouse's genitals and applying one's fingers to the same area. Maybe I take the teleological view of such things a little too far, but it seems to me like the hand is designed for manipulation and poking around, while the mouth is built for eating, talking, and breathing, though that might just be a post hoc rationalization of my own personal squicks. Even so, I certainly wouldn't accuse someone of sinning for engaging in oral sex.
Third...I'm not entirely convinced that you're right about this being an illegal war, but I'm not convinced that you're wrong. However, at this point, now that it's started I think the best option is to take the path that the Whigs took during the Mexican-American War--that is to say, supporting the success of American arms while decrying the process that caused them to be used in the first place. Then, once the war's over and the Ayatollahs are gone we hold an impeachment and a trial with the *explicit* proviso that the only person who is at risk is POTUS. Because at this point, I think the consequences of stopping this thing before the job is done will be worse than seeing it through to the end.
(Note: lest anyone think I am a partisan on such matters, if they made me dictator and Edward Snowden fell into my hands, I would give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for exposing the NSA's shenanigans, and then have him shot for treason for running to China and Russia afterwards.)
Ope! Takes me hours to respond to substantive points, but I can thank you for finding an amusing typo right away! Thanks! Fixed.
I've always doubted whether AUMF's are in fact a Constitutional exercise of Congress's power to declare war. As a Ron Paul fan back in Bush's term, I was nodding along when I read his speech against the Iraq AUMF: "This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to."
That said, in practice I need to agree you're correct. You make an excellent point that AUMF's (when sufficiently precise) do in fact serve the same role in the public debate. Which, sadly, is lacking here.
I'm praying too that this illegal war will at least bring about good in the end. I agree, it's definitely possible.
Doesn't the war powers resolution specifically say it doesn't authorise anything or add to the president's power? Sot it can't be the thing that authorised repelling invasions or other self-defence.
"Nothing in this joint resolution—
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces
into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution."
This is in response to the claim of statutory authority in footnote 15
But the WPR also 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."
I think you are correct that Congress thought he had Power #3 already. If they thought this power was new, they would have said, "We are intending to give the President this new power, and we are leaving everything else the same." I also think it's quite likely that the President *did* already have that power immediately from the Constitution.
But, in the alternative, I assume arguendo that Congress at the time was wrong, and that the President actually did *not* actually have Power #3 immediately from the Constitution (even though they believed he did). If that's the case, the War Powers Resolution says, "We are not trying to add anything to his constitutional authority," right before directly adding something to his constitutional authority.
I tend to think that the more specific grant of power is controlling over the more general denial, especially if it becomes clear that Congress was confused about the existing constitutional authority. In that world, I would read 50 USC 1547(d) as restricting expansive readings of 1541(c), but not as nullifying it, or any part of it. I would thus interpret the War Powers Resolution as giving the President new authority to use military force during a "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," but I would construe all those terms as narrowly as possible because of 1547(d).
You make a good point, though, that a different case could be made, and I didn't give any thought to that in the article.
I think general language limiting construction has priority over any inconsistent language, even if specific. Otherwise, no construction clause would ever do anything. That is the entire point of provisions on construction, by their nature they affect the whole thing whose construction they regulate.
Nothing in this resolution means nothing in this resolution, not something. Such language is intended to override any accidental grant of power. It seems to me to be rather strong language, and intended to override any contrary provision.
I would say that a construction clause is of a different kind, not simply a general provision, but it has priority over any substantive provision, because any substantive provision has to be construed according to it.
Then -- assuming arguendo the President has no inherent constitutional authority to defend the nation against attack -- what do you make of 1541(c)? Does 1547(d) just nullify that last power?
When a statute's rule of construction tells me to read a provision a certain way, of course I comply. When a statute's rule of construction tells me to ignore a different provision of the same legislative completely, it makes me think the rule of construction must not mean what it seems to mean.
Let me put it this way (assuming arguendo there is no inherent power): Congress may have been confused or wrong about constitutional authority, but it was not confused about whether it wanted to give the president additional powers.
It did not want to give additional powers, which is why it put in the rule of construction, in case it accidentally appeared to give him additional powers.
The rule of construction is primary (and in this case IMO quite explicit). You have to interpret other provisions in accordance with it.
You are trying to interpret the rule of construction in accordance with the other provisions, which is IMO nonsensical, you can not construe anything without following the rule of construction first. You are attempting to construe the resolution by yourself, and only then apply the rule of construction, while you should only look at it through the rule. Congress did not intend this, and it defeats the point of rules of construction.
Rules of construction are primary, and it is conceptually incoherent to attempt to construe them or harmonise them.
So, yes, it does nullify it. This is precisely the kind of situation Congresss adopted the rule to avoid.
I miss George W. Bush too, James. Of all the U.S. Presidents in my lifetime whom I remember, and Clinton is the first one I remember, GWB is the only one I trusted and whom I thought was doing what he thought actually advanced the common good. I have not had that sense from ANY of his successors, nor from Bill Clinton, his immediate predecessor, either.
And I, too, believe the current Iran War is unjust and illegal and I would have voted for the War Powers resolution and asked my U.S. Senators and Congresswoman to vote for it (thankfully, all 3 of them did so).
I, too, initially supported the Iraq War but now I think the Iraq War was indeed unjust and a mistake.