Is Bush A Lawful "commander In Chief"?, Not that he cares Options

[LizzyTish]

IS BUSH A LAWFUL "COMMANDER IN CHIEF"?
September 15, 2007

I have read that the President can only assume the duties of "Commander and Chief" when there is a declaration of war by the congress. As I understand it, the Constitution gives the power to initiate war, ONLY to the Congress.

With a lawful "Declaration of War", the the position of "Commander in Chief" is created for the president to assume. When the war ends, the position is dissolved. And the president continues on only in his civilian duties.

Since we have not had a declaration of war in over 60 years, Bush may not be the lawful "Commander in Chief" at this time.

If this were true, it would mean that he cannot legally command our armed forces. And it would allow the military to not follow his orders. Since the congress has not authorized him to constitutionally assume that position, it may be technically empty.

I would be curious to know if any of you have ever discussed this constitutional issue within political and military circles.

Source: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=109796


He's not even the lawful president...no big deal. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/angry.gif)

[raptormom]

This administration seems to have bent or broken ALL the rules of our supposed system of checks and balances. It is by far the most secretive Executive Branch in our history refusing to provide documents even by court order. We need to be concerned because I once read last Election that if circumstances of emergency exist in the country there is a means to delay a new election. Need some constitutional scholars out there to verify, but I feel democracy died with Election 2000.

[datars]

The worst (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif)

[Devilsadvocate]

That's actually an interesting question...
One of the Judges at the Nuremberg trials said in his closing statements that *the*
worst warcrime of them all was to fight a war of aggression- because that in itself contains all other warcrimes already in potential form.
Off my head, i can't remember if there was a declaration of war issued or not.
What i do know is that Congress back then gave the Bush-administration express permission to go to war without a UN-resolution.
If the situation is as described- that there must be a declaration of war by Congress (or a declaration of war by another nation against the United States ??) in order to allow Bush to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief-
it may open up an interesting situation- because it may mean that not only Bush holds that position illegally, but that a number of serious question should be raised regarding the role of Congress.

This leaves me with the following questions:

1) Exactly what is the situation regarding a declaration of war- is one neccessary for the President to assume the role as Commander-in-Chief ?

2) Was a declaration of war issued before the invasion 2003 ?

3) In how far was Congress legally entitled to sanction an attack on Iraq- should it turn out that Bush should *not* have any legal entitlement to holding the position of C-in-C ?

The position in Germany is that *any* military operation involving German troops must be first cleared by Parliament- a German chancellor can not simply decide to sent troops somewhere or "go to war" if he pleases; the US-position on this evidently differs greatly...

[datars]

Well put Devilsadvocate (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Cary]

There HAS BEEN NO FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR BY CONGRESS. What these chicken sh*t mofo's did was a joint resolution of CONgress authorizing military action against Iraq if ALL three following conditions were met.

1) Iraq had WMD's and they posed a threat to the US.

2) That Iraq had connections to and supported al Qaeda and terrorist organizations.

3) That Iraq had some hand in the 9/11 attacks.

Upon the use of military action, Bush had 48 hours to provide this evidence to the CONgress. After exercising military action, the White House sent a letter to CONgress saying that all three conditions had been met, but provided no evidence to back up these conditions.

CONgress has been a bunch of "ass licking little chicken sh*t's" (Admiral Fallon)

Here's a link to the joint resolution.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-2.html

Here's a link to bush's bullshit letter.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030319-1.html

It's all bushshit. Not a spelling error.

[Devilsadvocate]

The Hague convention states the following:

CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES

(...)

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

Article 2
The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague03.htm

This is what wikipedia says about it:

Undeclared wars
See also: War Powers Clause, War Powers Resolution, and War Powers Act
In most democratic nations, a declaration of war customarily must be passed by the legislature. In the United States there is no format required for declaration(s) of war. The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the United States Constitution. Instead the Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War." That concept has never been tested in the American judicial system. Some, such as Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), argue that an explicit declaration of war is, in fact, a Constitutional requirement.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Sep 15 2007, 05:59 PM