|
|
|
Subject:
RE:US invasion of Iraq to BSL
bsl
8/5/2002 9:43:29 PM
|
| 1)Don't base any constitutional arguments
on the War Powers Resolution. One easy clue
that this is a complete loser is that it's
a basic axiom of Constitutional Law that nogrant or restriction of power allocated by the Constitution can be changed by statute. (This
is related to the often cited "separation
of powers" justification the Supreme Court
often cites.)
Whatever power the President actually has, he has
because it was granted by the Constitution. No
statute can add or detract from that.
Or, to put it another, and somewhat more practical
way, the Supreme Court will not allow Congress
to move in on their power to interpret the Constitution.
Or, to put it still another way, no Congress can,
through legislative action, bind a subsequent
Congress through mere stature. IOW, if the Congress which passed the act was exercising any
legitimate power, it could only do so with respect
to that, specific Congress. Any subsequent Congress had an equal right to exercise inherent
powers, itself, as it wished, without being
bound by the action of a previous Congress.
What it all comes down to is that the actual
legal effect of the War Powers Resolution was
not really anything more than a statement of
the intent of the Congress which passed it.
If this Congress chooses to pretend it doesn't
exist, they have every right to do so WITHOUT
violating any law. The don't need to repeal it.
They can just ignore it.
Treaty obligations? A treaty is the formal word
of a sovereign state. It's an exercise of pure
sovereign will. Just in a formal form. If a
country can decide to go to war by treaty, it
can similarly decide to go to war without a
treaty. The decision involves exercise of the
same basic power, either way.
You've never actually studied law, at all, let
alone international law, have you? |
| |
|
|
|
