UnConstitutional
Presidential
Emergency War Powers

I will preface this article with a simple statement, and this is that the 'United States Constitution' and the 'Presidential Emergency War Powers' are two separate and entirely different powers. You will find that neither mentions the other, and this should be your first warning. The warning if you do not see the connection, is that our Constitution decrees and established all 'legal' Offices, Authorities, and Responsibilities endowed and permitted to our government whom we allow and elect. What this means is that the Constitution of our nation is a legal power, however the Emergency War Powers is extra-legal and supersedes the Constitution. You see, this Emergency War Powers today replaces our Constitution, Congress, the Judicial branch, and all other legal government operations. It may interest you to know that this extra-legal powers has secretly existed now for the past 65 years, a secret government if you will that has operated separately outside the many laws and treaties governing our nation.

The U.S. Constitution is a blueprint drawn up that establishes the American fabric we call Democracy. Within this Constitution are the well laid plans that establish three branches of our government, and within the Articles of this Constitution are laid out the separate authorities, powers, and responsibilities specific to the operation of each branch of government. Only during the Civil War did a situation occur that interrupted the Legislative or Congressional operation of our Constitutional government. Back then as today, every representative we elected to office must take an oath to serve the people they represent, and to protect our U.S. Constitution. Fortunately it takes 3/4 of the States to pass a Constitutional amendment, unfortunately today it takes only One President to surpass the entire U.S. Constitution.

Within the U.S. Constitution and Article-I; specifically Section-8, resides the only mention of ‘War Powers' authority, this being the absolute authority given only and with specific qualifications to Congress. Article-I in its entirety is called the 'Congressional Authorities'.

Within the U.S. Constitution and Article-II; specifically Section-2 is the Executive or Presidential ‘Authorities'. Nowhere within Article-II can be found Presidential authority to ‘declare war', nor authority to "Engage" U.S. Military outside of US borders to (initiate an offensive War) by invasion of a foreign nation. The Constitution defines the President as 'Commander and Chief' of the military (only) "when called into the actual Service of the United States," meaning when Congress has "Declared War." Even then the President is only given the authority to "Defend" American interests, citizens and shores, clearly defined as a case when a foreign power attacks America. Article-II in its entirety is called the 'Presidential Authorities'.

The recent authorization (supposedly) given to the President called the Congressional Resolution in Sections I-II-III-IV set specific and mandatory limits (Click here to read) stating requirements that in key points the Bush Administration totally ignored in fact warning UN personnel to leave, and in regards to UN commitments acknowledged by Congress as binding agreement, these were circumvented using outright lies and deception that today are well documented. Understand that Congress (must) be in compliance with the US Constitution in (all) action's and decree's, it cannot violate the letter of restrictions and authorities as established in the Constitution, nor abdicate themselves from (their) Constitutional duties.

In regards to the Presidential Constitutional authorities, this document mentions the President as Supreme Commander of the military (only) when Congress (has) declared war. Take note that the "Emergency War Powers" ascribed to the Executive Branch is (not) in the US Constitution (see above references). Some argue that as this part of the Constitution has been broken so often, it negates this section of the Constitution, opening a very dangerous precedence for lawlessness. Mentioning the unConstitutional "Executive War Powers" again, as example of this lawlessness, America by this unlawful declaration is (still) under 'Emergency War Status', these being three past wars declared not by Congress but by past DEM/GOP Presidents.

Within the entire U.S. Constitution and specifically Article-I (Legislative Authorities), there is found no mention giving Congress the authority to abdicate their War Powers, nor authority to pass Special Legislation (Resolution or Code) that would allow a President to ‘Declare War' in their place. This of course would ignore the fact that for the past 65 years using these illegal Presidential Emergency War Powers (issuing Executive Orders), Presidents have posted many 'decrees' in the Federal Register, these 'decrees' then become US Law and have also began wars or other illegal Emergency War Power actions.

Regarding this later statement of Presidents writing and establishing laws using this illegal Emergency War Powers, the US-Congress through legislation is the only body of US Government that has Constitutional Powers to establish and make laws. This means that the US Congress (and Federal Judiciary) have 'unConstitutionally' allowed Presidents for the past 65 years to illegally make 'Laws'. Regarding an Executive Order posted by a President, it takes a 2/3 majority of Congress to over-ride and end an Presidential Executive Order. Congress does have the power to end this illegal Emergency War Powers of the Executive Branch.

When it is said that Congress and Executive (plus Judicial) Branch's of government are trashing the US Constitution, this is one case that it refers. Congress has not ‘Declared War' involving a military conflict since WWII, meaning that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches and our government have violated the U.S. Constitution in every ‘Police Action' plus every other use of US Military in attacking a foreign nation or domestic enemy since WWII. This includes Reagan using military at a prison riot, and Clinton enabling both US and British military forward deployed at the Davidian incident in WACO, Texas. Other illegal purposes and actions in which US Presidents have used this "War Powers," has involved US agricultural, labor, and other non-Presidential authorized 'emergencies'.

When our Constitution was written, statements by framers of the Constitution indicated they realized the need to establish our government with separate branches that augmented and overlooked each other. These statements indicate they realized it best to authorize only the larger Legislative branch with authority to ‘Declare War'. This was why the three branches of government were set up separate and given only authorities specific to their purpose, a safeguard to prevent strong men or usurpers from taking control of the greater legislative branch of our government. It should also be mentioned that of the three branches of US Government, Congressional Representatives are the (only) representatives in our government that US Citizens directly vote and elect into Office.

The violations we are now involved regarding the Iraq war also includes violations of several international treaties to which the U.S. government are presently committed as signatory members. The Iraq war in respect to Presidential Emergency powers is also not covered in this situation, and at best is little more than an attempt to side step the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Congress, U.S. Law, and U.S. Treaties. Understand that this Emergency War Powers was already in existence for President Bush, Congressional approval (resolution) for Bush to declare war was unnecessary and secondary to Presidential War Powers, so ask yourself why Congress passed this special resolution anyway. Supposed Congressional safeguards passed in 1973 against President Nixons overuse of War Powers in Vietnam, were essentially precluded by previous foreign and domestic actions passed on from previous administrations involved in their never ending dream called war. America has been under Emergency War Conditions since FDR and 1943.

It must be remembered the only reason "Executive War Powers" were necessary by President Abraham Lincoln, was that our civil war divided the nation, splitting Congress into a body incomplete and without the necessary quorum needed to operate. To keep the government in operation during this period, Lincoln began issuing Special Emergency Executive Orders. However, once the nation and Congress returned to a ‘complete' operating body, President Lincoln terminated the War Powers and reinstated the Constitutional government. Make sure you understand, when Lincoln terminated the Emergency Executive Powers, a complete and (Full) Congress with all government Offices existed as originally formed by our Constitution.

President Franklin Roosevelt re instituted Emergency Executive Powers. Every President since has passed this Executive Power along unterminated, and with each passing greater dictatorial power has been established in the Executive Branch. With greater power in the Executive Office came less Congressional representation and oversight, resulting in serious and dangerous erosion of civil rights and freedoms of American citizens. Needless to say, it is obvious today how this lawlessness in foreign and domestic affairs has given way to unbridled and immoral greed benefitting at most an elite few, while at the expense of most American citizens, not to mention the death and suffering of unfortunate 3rd World populations.

Whether Executive Powers were used for Debt emergency, Farm and Agricultural emergency, Labor emergency, and the mirage of other Non-War emergencies, the greatest benefit that resulted from Presidential War Powers has consistently benefitted elite entities while undercutting those of American citizens. Americans are not the only people who have suffered from Emergency War Powers, the citizens in the nation of Chile can attest to losing their Democracy, a measure taken to safeguard the holdings of US-Corporate interests, and then a Military Dictatorship set up in its place. Vicious terrorist organizations such as SAVAK was set up in Iran during the 1950s, and the terrorist organization called CONDOR was set up for South American regimes during the 1970s. What instead might have happened had our Congressional representatives not coward to the power of wealthy bullies, but instead had fulfilled their government duties they had sworn to perform. If Congress has the authority to terminate the Presidential "Emergency War Powers", it should be noted that not one Congress since FDR has done so.

Both the Democrat and Republican political parties have been passing this "Emergency War Powers" back and forth (secretly) for the past 65-years. This is not a recent phenomena, nor has one political party had exclusive rights, it is a 'bipartisan' fact. President Bush today is using Emergency War Powers he has inherited, these in total and fact supersedes U.S. Law, the Congress, and the Constitution, meaning that all three branches of U.S. Government are now in violation of U.S. Law and the U.S. Constitution. There will be nowhere within our Constitution found an authorization for a President to 'pass laws', yet this is exactly what DEM/GOP Presidents using this "Presidential Emergency War Powers" have been doing these past 65-years. Contrary to popular opinion, America in 1991 did not run the Iraq war, but along with 23 other nations, our Congress passed a Joint Resolution that Authorized use of United States Armed Forces under United Nations authority against Iraq.

That these people (DEM and GOP Leadership) believe Emergency War Powers ‘replaces' US Law and the Constitutional government, this should be a red-flag warning to all American citizens. One question regarding this matter is indicative and proof of the illegal nature of our present government. Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt, every US President has chosen to retain the Emergency War Powers, passing it along never to be terminated. Name one time you were taught in school or college that Americans for the past 65 years have continuously lived under "Emergency War Conditions", and that Presidential Powers have superseded the US Constitution, US Laws, and the US Congress.

Today some are becoming aware for the first time to the erosion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but as something new and the fault of a single political party. In truth this erosion has been going on for many decades, also involving periods of both political parties having majority representation. It has gone on even before Franklin D. Roosevelt, who of a South American dictator called Samoza said, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch," raising the question of when 'we the people' began claiming son of dictators.

An excuse by those involved in weakening and circumventing our Constitution and Democracy, is irrelevant statements such as our founders having no idea what would be possible and a problem from modern technology. What these apologists omit considering, is that these founders were very wise men, understanding that the greatest danger would not be from advancements of technology, but in fact how these developments or products would be used. Just as we today say it is not guns that are a danger in themselves, it is the person who uses the gun. The founders wisely understood the nature of man, understanding this to be the origin of problem when power, greed, and desire to control became a true danger. The Federalist Papers during the writing of the Constitution being a guiding principle that addressed this very real and understood danger.

Using this wisdom, the founding fathers established a constitutional government based upon moral and ethical principles, this being a government of checks and balances. It was an Executive head, a Legislative body, and a Judicial or interpretive arm. Each with their own authorizations and responsibilities, each augmenting and overseeing the operation of the others. Within this structure, the greatest or largest branch is the Congressional or Legislative branch, also the only representative's that we 'directly' vote into office. The Legislative branch given the greater responsibilities in representing the will of the people. Over these activities the Executive and Judicial had responsibility of oversight and interactive input. Neither the Executive or Judicial however were given the power to make laws, although today in bypassing the Legislative authorities both the Executive and Judicial go beyond their Constitutional authorities and establish law as they believe authorized by their own interpretation of executive law.

For those who wonder about the Presidential or Executive Branch claim to extraordinary authorities over US citizens in time of declared war, read Article-III, Section-3 of your Constitution, it explains the power and authorities in this situation, being the Legislative or Congressional, and not at all mentioning it mandated to the Executive office. It does mention trial by court of law with burden of proof upon the court, and allows representation by lawyer. Article-III, Section-3 of the Constitution calls such person/s as involved in acts of treason. Not once does the Constitution in Article-III authorize the Executive Branch to establish special Tribunals or Military Tribunal that authorizes extraordinary measures now being utilized by the Executive Office of the President.

RtPriceTag@comcast.net
| Return to Top | Return to Index of Articles |

END of ARTICLE

Congressional Resolution of Oct. 16 2002

PL 107-243, October 16, 2002, 116 Stat 1498
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations";

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".

SECTION 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection(a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.--

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SECTION 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.--To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Now read (your) Constitution and see WHO HAS WAR POWERS
and HOW WAR MUST BE DECLARED Constitutionally
RETURN to ARTICLE