My Thoughts On Iran and the Constitution

[Hosnon]

I believe that it was Constitutionally permissible for Bush to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 without Congress' authorization. Only Congress can enter us into an offensive war but if the U.S. is on the receiving end of an offensive war, the President is authorized to defend the country. I was ok with, and supported our "invasion" of Afghanistan.

I protested going into Iraq - mainly under the same set of principles: Bush can't go into Iraq unless Iraq attacked us. I didn't believe that and thus believed Bush had no authority to do so. However, I can see how many were duped into believing Iraq had done so...it was, after all, two years after 9/11.

But Iran...this would be nothing but an offensive war. There is no explicit Constitutional authority or implicit Constitutional authority for the President to wage such a war. Those on the right CANNOT defend an invasion without the consent of Congress...it is very plainly contrary to the Constitution.

I protested Iraq but if Bush tries to pull this off I'm going to unleash the bottled-up radicalism I've kept underneath my moderate exterior for the past few years. If I have one big fault it's that I can always see the other side(s) of an argument...but not this...

Edit: Amazingly horrible errors...It's early:)

[eallen]

1. The Constitution doesn't distinguish offensive and defensive wars.

The day after Pearl Harbor, FDR requested and Congress provided him a declaration of war against Japan.

[Hosnon]

2. I think it does - will look for case authority. If a state of war already

exists, the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

[Hosnon]

4. Here we go:

"If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority."

- Justice Grier, for the majority, 67 U.S. 635 (1863).

It seems that the Supreme Court has read the Constitution to differentiate between offensive and defensive wars. In the case of the former, Congress must provide its authorization but in the case of the latter, the President is Constitutionally authorized to act.

[Toots]

3. Bush* feels as "Unitary Executive" he has authority to do what he wishes

He feels he was given that exalted position by Congress with passing the IWR. It basically said we were at "War" and the pResident was Commander and Chief. "War on Terror" is all encompassing and will go on forever by definition. Humans have always experienced Terror and always will experience Terror. Just like the "War on Hunger" or the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Crime"..These things have always been and always will be and yes we must do what ever we can to counter them but "War"???????....especially in that using that terminology grants the President certain "authority" like "Unitary Executive" where his word and his word alone can name a person "enemy combatant" and have all rights guaranteed under the Constitution be stripped away from that person. That Congress must answer to him and not the other way around...Yes he feels he can invade any place he pleases and if anyone tries to stand in his way he will destroy them...Anyone....