Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 02/16/2007 View Thu 02/15/2007 View Wed 02/14/2007 View Tue 02/13/2007 View Mon 02/12/2007 View Sun 02/11/2007 View Sat 02/10/2007
1
2007-02-16 Home Front: WoT
Pelosi: Bush Lacks Authority to Invade Iran
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2007-02-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I understand the politics behind why the Congress will not up or down it's support for the President, in a binding vote of record; but I can't understand for the life of me why "W" won't just go to the Congress and get the 'Consent' up or down, and if it's down, pull back the Umbrella Force and declare they won't go back unless a 2/3s vote of "GO" from both chambers hit his desk thereafter!
Posted by smn 2007-02-16 02:04||   2007-02-16 02:04|| Front Page Top

#2 But we can bomb Iran and destroy their Navy, ports, electricity and fuel infrastructure, right?
Posted by JAB 2007-02-16 02:14||   2007-02-16 02:14|| Front Page Top

#3 *boggle*
Has this 'lady' ever done anything useful and positive in her life ? She just seems to me to be a sniping, ineffective, self promoting, narcissist megalomaniac.

GW is on the money yet again .. "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."

Although I'm sure, him, like us, would love to knock ten bells of sh1t out of the MM.

With 'friends' like these who needs enemies ..
Posted by MacNails 2007-02-16 05:00||   2007-02-16 05:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Where is the Congressional concern about Iran's efforts to murder our troops and continue to destabilize Iraq? Or does the Moonbat Party think President Bush is responsible for Iran's hatred of the West as well?
Posted by Sic_Semper_Tyrannus 2007-02-16 06:39||   2007-02-16 06:39|| Front Page Top

#5 This is not going to end well.
Posted by SR-71 2007-02-16 09:10||   2007-02-16 09:10|| Front Page Top

#6 Did Clinton get prior approval for sending the troops into Haiti or Kosovo?
Posted by Procopius2k 2007-02-16 09:18||   2007-02-16 09:18|| Front Page Top

#7 Even before congress completes its debate on these confetti resolutions that many believe signals weakness to friends and foe alike, the Democrats are already looking to neuter the Executive branch on another battle front. Perhaps they should debate a “Sense of the Congress/Senate” resolution that unequivocally states that Iran’s’ opaque nuclear endeavors are completely unacceptable. Just a suggestion.
Posted by DepotGuy 2007-02-16 09:52||   2007-02-16 09:52|| Front Page Top

#8 Panama,Colombia,Grenada,Somolia,Guataemala,El Salvador.....
Posted by Whish Clotle5413 2007-02-16 10:16||   2007-02-16 10:16|| Front Page Top

#9 Of course he has the authority to invade Iran. It's called the War Powers Resolution, and Democrats forced it down the throat of a Republican president. Here's how it goes:
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
The upshot: Unless Congress specifically forbids it, the President has 60 days to do what he wants, after which the Congress has another chance to vote up or down on hostilities. The Congress might do just that; but in the meantime, the President has the authority to conduct military operations as he sees fit. Practically speaking, this is plenty of time to bomb the shit out of Iran's nuclear facilities and bases feeding the Quds Brigade into Iraq, and maybe send in some raiders to drive the point home. Pelosi, Murtha, Levin et al. are blowing smoke, and they know it. Does W know it too?

Consider this: People of my generation remember the Iran Hostage Crisis with a sense of rage and shame. What's more, Bush is a lame duck and has poll numbers in the toilet. In other words, he's got nothing to lose. As such, he might as well do the best thing possible for the security of the region, and stick a thumb in the Democrats' eyes to boot.
Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan  2007-02-16 10:22||   2007-02-16 10:22|| Front Page Top

#10 Bugger, forgot the URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm
Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan  2007-02-16 10:24||   2007-02-16 10:24|| Front Page Top

#11 Is this a version of the "Big Lie'?something so outrageous nobody questions it?

She just has no possible conceot of "Law" Does she, Thinks everything is subject to change by her whim?
Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-02-16 10:45||   2007-02-16 10:45|| Front Page Top

#12 concept, dammit
Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-02-16 10:46||   2007-02-16 10:46|| Front Page Top

#13 Re: the War Powers Act - its Constitutionality has yet to be decided by the SCOTUS, and everything I've ever heard/read on the subject is that the WPA would die a very quick, final death if it were ever to actually go to SCOTUS. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because no Republican President has needed/wanted to push the issue and no Democratic President has been held to it (The Bosnian intervention should have been a prime case for the WPA if there ever was one, but the media and Democratic congresscritters never pushed it).The Dems know that, and if they invoke the WPA they'll be banking on two things: one, the American public's complete lack of knowledge regarding the Constitution and two, that the Administration would back down from a Constitutional crisis. Don't forget that a victory for the Dems in a fight over the WPA wouldn't just tie President Bush's hands - it would tie President Hillary's hands too.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-16 15:06||   2007-02-16 15:06|| Front Page Top

08:24 DarthVader
23:51 Creregum Gleanter1164
23:51 Danking70
23:48 Creregum Gleanter1164
23:17 Shieldwolf
23:02 ed
23:02 49 Pan
22:57 Omans Ebbogum2503
22:57 whatadeal
22:56 Omans Ebbogum2503
22:53 ed
22:52 ed
22:43 whatadeal
22:42 49 Pan
22:37 Geoffro
22:35 DarthVader
22:33 DarthVader
22:28 Lone Ranger
22:27 RD
22:23 ed
22:22 Chinesh Hupert1797
22:22 Zhang Fei
22:20 Zhang Fei
22:20 DarthVader









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com