"Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief"

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Originally Posted by Gilsch

You had it wrong from the start.

"Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in these forums.... "

As the polls from oh, the last 4 to 6 months show, it should read: "Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in this country...."

Originally Posted by BR

Thank you for your irrelevant, inflammatory comment.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Of course, it seems like there is that evidence, not that I'm advocating attacking.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in these forums...

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I think that if there was some evidence of Iran interfering in Iraq, supplying weapons, that would be enough. Of course, it seems like there is that evidence, not that I'm advocating attacking.

As for occupying a country, I think he could do it, but Congress could call it off. I don't know about a Declaration of War....it's almost as if it's an extinct action. Why do you feel that is? I have some thoughts I'll share later.

I would have liked to see a formal Declaration of War against Al-Queda and other terror groups though.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Just stop. You know full well what the majority opinion is here in terms of political spectrum.

Determining the number of troops to be deployed, how long they will stay and conditions for withdrawal;

Analyzing the implications of troop deployment upon current policies toward Bosnia, (including: U.S. participation in enforcing No-Fly Zone; impact on the Administration's arms embargo policy);Paying for the military operation; and, Ensuring Congressional participation (e.g., from consultation to authorization).

While to a large degree, the number of troops required will be dependent on the terms ?of the peace accord, the fact that the Administration does not hold a unified position on such ?a critical issue is of particular concern.

Prior to sending U.S. troops to Bosnia, Congress must have a full estimate of how much such deployment will cost.

By following such a course, the Administration will be handing Congress a fait accompli, rendering irrelevant any advice Congress could offer. Worse yet, the Administration then would be in a position to defend its plan as is by charging that any proposed changes to ccommodate Congressional concerns would lead to an unraveling of the peace accord.

You cannot deny that these weapons exist. You cannot deny that there is presently no manufacturing capability within Iraq able to produce those kinds of weapons.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yeah, I agree with you on most of those points, including the few months (90 days) of military action without Congressional approval. I disagree with the very first statement. I think he can legally order an attack, but not sustain one.

Originally Posted by BRussell

It depends: As I understand it, if Iran lobbed a missile into a US ship, for example, Bush could order an attack back without congressional approval. However, I don't think Bush could constitutionally invade and occupy Iran in the same way we did Iraq, without congressional approval.

I'd go even further and say that congress should have declared war before we invaded Iraq, rather than the weasely resolution that was passed.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Disagree. He clearly has the legal authority. Congress cannot change his constutional powers pre-emptively. They can put a stop to any operation by denying funding.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Then you frankly don't know the law. If Bush chooses to attack Iran, he can do so legally, regardless of what Pelosi and Reid say. Now, as I've said, Congress can cut off all funding. Congress could even try to pass a binding resolution ordering the action to stop. That might be a different story.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Of course, one would have to be totally sure that the "missile lobbed onto a US ship", to be blamed on Iran, was really carried out by Iran.

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

George Bush is going to do what he wants to do.

He shows no interest in being confined by binding law like the Geneva Conventions (torture in Iraq and Gitmo), Congress (Iraq war resolution), and the Constitution (signing statements, suspension of habeas corpus, etc). Where there's the slightest bit of ambiguity, George Bush is going to interpret that as a full-blooded mandate for his cause-du-jour. That's why Congress needs to be as proactive and careful as it can in dealing with a dangerous administration like his on this Iran issue. We could be in very serious trouble soon.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Disagree. He clearly has the legal authority.