War Powers - Shared or Owned by Only One Branch

More sites to review:


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/military_deployments.html

For informational purposes:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_12

Lots of good info on some issues/problems/questions with the War Powers Act.

The DECIDER launched us into war in the middle east for the purpose of enriching his crony supporters to the tune of billions of dollars every month plundered from our national coffers and middle east resources. The war isn't over yet because the powers that be have another two years left in office to continue reaping the spoils. It ain't going to be over until every bit of possible profit is squeezed from the blood of our soldiers and until middle class taxpayers are sunk into the poor house under the massive weight of our national debt:



http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/



GOOD NEWS: Oil industry awash in record levels of cash




RECORD PROFITS



Exxon Mobil sets profit record



Exxon and Shell Report Record Profits for 2006






Do you really think Bush, the decider, launched us into war for our own good?

What does that have to do with the debate over constitutional war powers between the branches of our government and each branch's interpretation of their various lawful abilities to halt a war?

If you want to debate the motives of it, there are dozens of other threads already doing so.

We have co-equal branches of government and their powers overlap. Accordingly, you can debate this issue for the next two years and never find an answer. Congress can debate; the people can debate. The First Amendment protects our right to debate and to voice our approval or disapproval for the acts of an obstinate president. But here's where we're at:

White House: We will send more troops in Iraq



An intellectual debate over whether Bush has the constitutional power to mismanage and drag out his war for profit is exactly that--an intellectual debate. It doesn't resolve the current crisis. The "Decider-in-Chief" already decided and he doesn't care whether his stubborn stance divides the country morally and politically. Wealth is power and Bush's two terms in this nation's highest office is making billionaires of all of his "friends." Mission Accomplished.

Bush's description of himself as being a "uniter not a divider" was clearly a lie. He's a self-interested divider. You're either with him or against him. He doesn't care what anyone other than himself thinks because he's in power and he'll do what he wants with his power. Unless Bush is promptly removed from office, there will not be an end to this war during his term of office. That's the reality that we must face.

He has the power and he's abusing his power. His motivation for abusing his power ought to be our true concern because the billionaires he created will control our government for decades to come.

As much as I'd like to say otherwise, it seems quite clear in every document that Congress has the power to declare war, and thats it. They are never given the right to end a war, so that right would naturally fall into the lap of the Commander-in-Chief: The President. Sure, Congress can pass wimpy little resolutions and what not, but the only way they can stop a war is stop funding it, and even at that point the President could still keep them there, their equipment would merely break down, their weapons run out of ammo, etc. etc. but the war would still not be over. It could be said, I guess, that the people have the right under the Tenth Amendment, because the definition of Commander-in-Chief and his rights could be argued, and the right to end war could fall to the states/people.

At Speed of Sound
How can we be at war? Our Congress never declared war. They don't have to end it. It isn't happening. Don't worry about it.