Putting an anti-democratic argument to rest: Treaties do not disinclude Congress from war decisions.

From the War Powers Resolution of 1973:



Emphasis added.

Read the bolded parts again and again and again. Commit them to memory, for this treaty garbage is coming fast and thick in defense of the imperial presidency.

authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities"

That is exactly what the Security Council under the U.N. Charter did.

The WPR is referring to the specific checks and balances as applied within the United States government.

The UN does not replace our duly elected legislature, no matter how many times you assert this.

The idea that the UN can be constitutionally substituted for the representative bodies of the American People is anti-democratic. It is subversive and corrosive to our constitutional order and would rightly be recognized as total madness if pursued by a Republican president.

I did not approve of Bush shredding the constitution. I will not sit for it just because a president is a Democrat.

You cited a paragraph about a treaty, which is what the U.N. Charter is.

The paragraph specifically forbids a treaty from superseding Congress' powers to authorize war. No treaty can provide tacit authorization for war. Congress must explicitly pass legislation authorizing the action.

it doesn't say what you think it does.

"unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities"

The U.N. Charter, with its specified Security Council ojectives, was ratified by Congress.

More here.

The Congress must specifically authorize actions under the treaty by legislation.

Which part of that is fuzzy?

The part where you don't seem to understand the U.N. Charter and WPA.

Your own quotes refute you, but you simply assert they don't say what they do in very clear, precise English.

Orwell was issuing warnings, not guidelines, you know.

The UN Charter ITSELF specifies that it can't compel a country to even live up to an agreement to send in the boys when called up by UN Article 42. When referring to agreements with leaders, it says that:

"...They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

The War Powers Act Section 8(2) that's initially referenced is being contested by ProSense on the grounds that a treaty with a provision in it that authorizes military action is exempt, and thus the President would be able to simply push the button, since the treaty itself had built-in authorization. Where ProSense thinks "legislation specifically" authorizes the introduction of our Armed Forces comes from is perplexing. It can't come from the UN Charter, since that's not legislation, so the only other place it could be from is the UN Participation Act, which specifically states that the President has to get Congress' Authorization.

Somehow very, very many people here think that Congress has willingly surrendered it's control over the decision to enter war to the United Nations, when it has specifically said in the UN Participation Act that it doesn't, and the UN Charter separately acknowledges that it isn't even claiming this right.

It's not the least bit applicable. This treaty does not claim the authority over us to order us around or grant the President the right to loose the hounds by him/herself, and the Congressional Law that specifies our involvement in the UN specifically states that the President has to get Congress' Approval to send armed forces, either well in advance, or after the Article 42 call-to-arms, but BEFORE any forces are deployed.

Prism has been very measured and much more concise than I, and has been more than patient with that poster, so if a couple more exchanges have occurred and been terse in the face of complete mis-reading and unwillingness to admit error--compounded with incivility of tone--I'd say give the cat a pass; this one goes to eleven, and that gets muy old in a hurry.

The UN Charter doesn't and can't compel, permit or authorize, and Congress reserves the right to Authorize EXCEPT when we're attacked. Even then, it reserves the right of serious consultation, which doesn't seem to have happened either.

Not even close. Unconstitutional. High-handed. Hazardous to our Party. Sloppy. Dumb.

Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities shall not be inferred from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified..

Plain English version: it doesn't matter what treaties we've approved or signed! We're not letting the president think he or she has the authority to get into a fight!

unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities...

Remember when we said "It doesn't matter what treaty we've signed?" Well, we're going to make some exceptions. Specifically, if the treaty we approved or signed was specifically about getting into fights, then we've already settled authority in that case.

The difficulty you're having is with the phrase "that treaty is implemented." You think it means "when the UN asks us to do something, in this moment" (today, or now). It actually means "When the treaty became law" (i.e., when we became signatories to the UN Charter). That's the difficulty that is causing such vastly different readings by you and ProSense. It's also why you're wrong.

There are two types of treaties: self-executing and non-self-executing. Self-executing treaties do not require subsequent legislation for the them to be in effect; non-self-executing treaties do.

ETA: And this appears to be Congress' expression of its opinion that no treaty regarding the introduction of force is self-executing.

Per the UN Participation Act, the President may negotiate special agreements with the Security Council regarding forces and situations, but they have to be approved by Congress. If called upon by an invocation of UN Charter Article 42 to take military action, the President may do so without further Authorization from Congress, but ONLY IF HE/SHE'S GOTTEN AUTHORIZATION FOR THE UNDERLYING SPECIAL AGREEMENT. It means he/she doesn't have to go back; it's akin to what Bush did domestically: he got permission ahead of time to stomp Iraq if his vague promises of other techniques didn't pan out.

The UN Charter gives the farm away all by itself anyway, saying, in Article 43, Section 3:

"They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

To Recap:

--The US law that delineates our very involvement in the United Nations specifies that the President MUST get Congress' approval to set up an agreement from which he can commit troops when asked.
--The UN Charter itself confirms that it can't expect members to adhere to military force agreements made by a leader unless THAT LEADER'S GOVERNMENT RATIFIES IT. There's nothing in there about compelling them to commit forces when requested. It doesn't give itself any presumption of being able to release a country's leader from obligations at home. All it can do is trigger an agreement with a resolution that is STILL the leader's choice to commit to or not.
--The War Powers Act (28 years later) reaffirms that a President can't INITIATE a war unless Congress authorizes it or Declares War, OR we are attacked. It further defines what "war" is, and does so as introducing forces into hostilities or imminent ones.

I don't see how anything applicable hasn't been addressed, and here's an article from the U.C. Berkeley Law School regarding this assessment of Congress' UN Participation Act. (It's in section IV.)

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

Jesus Christ Almighty there are a lot of people here who can't read!!! I've seen quote after quote by a few posters here who cut-and-paste documents that literally SPECIFICALLY DISPROVE the things they're contending in the same field of view.

Mr. Obama has made a king-hell whopper of a blunder here, and I'm just plain disgusted.

The only "out" I can see here is if he's gotten Authorization from Congress for some "special agreement" that would apply to let invocation of UN Article 42 be triggerable by him himself. I think I probably would have heard something about that.

about our history in general, and believe that they alone can interpret the U. S. Constitution with more insight than the SCOTUS. Kucinich and his loyal followers, along with the Tea Party members, are among them.

In 1823, President James Monroe set the tone for this entire chain-of-events when he introduced his now famous "Monroe Doctrine" during his seventh annual State of the Union address to Congress.

All U. S. presidents since Monroe have used the same concept which was so eloquently stated by President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address in 1961: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.

President Jimmy Carter took the concept a step further with the introduction of the "Carter Doctrine" during his State of the Union address to Congress in 1980, which he summed up with this statement: Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

President Reagan used the "Reagan Corollary" to the Carter Doctrine when he invaded Grenada in 1983. President G. H. W. Bush (Bush I) used the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary, when he invaded Panama in 1989, and again when he began Operation Desert Storm (along with the backing of a UN resolution) in 1990.

President Obama is well within his authority to participate in the Libya NFZ, and to expand that participation as he deems prudent. If it becomes necessary to consult with Congress, I have no doubt that he will -- when it becomes necessary (being a Constitutional scholar, and all).

facts, precedence, and history. Can you name one instance in the history of the United States of America where the SCOTUS has ruled against a sitting president's unilateral use of military force?

(and I agree with you. The excerpt quoted by Prism states congressional approval is necessary UNLESS congress approves a treaty in which it isn't necessary, i.e. "Congress says such actions are acceptable under the following circumstances, eg. action by the UN).

OK, that said, the UN Charter dates from the inception of the Korean War. I have not read the entire charter, only the parts posted here (and then only skimmed). Does the charter extend into perpetuity or was it only in regards action in Korea?

I apologize if this has been answered elsewhere. There are so many damn threads I cannot keep track.

On edit: Never mind. I found it. Assuming that the UN charter is a treaty, and that treaties must be ratified by Congress, then the Congress has already approved that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Of which the US is one, therefore Congress has approved it BECAUSE it is a decision of the UN Security Council, signatory to which the US is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"... from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities ..."

The two bolded words cannot both be the U.N. Charter.

Regarding agreements between countries and the Security Council:

"...They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

That's the UN saying it. They do not put themselves above the countries' own governments when it comes to deploying those countries' militaries.

They can authorize the members to use force, but unless the individual nation's political process has determined that it's constitutional, even if the leader in question has made a deal, it doesn't give him/her permission to act.

When the UN, by its own Charter, invokes Article 42, it allows member nations to do certain things, but the nations themselves have to determine if they want to go along, even if their leader has a deal on the table. Here's the stipulation, in UN Charter Article 43, Section 3:

"They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

For the United States, that means it doesn't mean squat until Congress Authorizes it.

The UN Participation Act of 1945 (the binding US law that lays out our rules for being a part of the UN) states that the President may answer the call to arms from an Article 42 mobilization, but he can only do so by him/herself if a "special agreement" has already BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS. If not, he/she needs that Authorization before proceeding. It's in Article 6. Here's a lengthy U.C. Berkeley Law Department article; the explanation is in section IV.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

It is really, really obvious here. Please respond.

.... 'cause apparently Bubba gave them the wrong advice.

"But they let me do it with Bosnia!"
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/30/world/clinton-defies-congress-in-aid-for-europeans-bosnia-force.html


You might also want to tell Kucinich ... who isn't using this in his argument.

Answer:
There is no point.
Congress doesn't have to reratify a treaty that they have already passed.
At that point, the President just upholds the treaty.

See other posts on this thread.

A Treaty is a living thing, and is an intersection point between the laws of the lands involved. Many elements of many treaties are subject to further approval, and let's be serious: nations are very wary about--if not respectful of WAR--so it gets even more laborious there.

But they do have to be implemented by legislation.

WPA is invalid insofar as it contradicts the Constitution. The Constitution requires Obama to get constitutional authorization for going into Libya. Treaties are ratified by the Senate, not by Congress as a whole. They can't substitute for congressional authorization.

It is making things more specific and anticipating the grey areas, which is specifically the right and duty of Congress via the "necessary and proper" clause.

Sorry to be snotty, especially when we're in effective agreement on this oh-so-important issue, but I don't like the slagging of the War Powers Act even in a minor way; I want it respected as the standing law of the land that is in perfect accord with the Constitution, and I heartily endorse its honorable attempt to clarify to a painstaking degree things like a definition of "war", which go so far to help in what is such a deadly and important subject.

the Constitution via statute. That clause is an enhancement mechanism for Congress' enumerated powers.

(Is that your argument? If not, please clarify for me.)

'The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.'

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

and the president's constitutional powers to make war sharply limited to very select circumstances.

I actually think it's about right, and I think Clinton's haggling with Foley and Dole over the extension of Somalia was a great example of its value.

Which we weren't. The clause you mistakenly think justifies your position simply states the mechanism by which the President must communicate with Congress in the event of being attacked. It VERY clearly states the three instances where the President can commit troops, and here's the quote:

"(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Seriously, folks literally EVERYWHERE you look this is so blatant and clear.

Congress passes laws to interpret the powers in the Constitution, per the "necessary and proper" clause at the end of Article 1, Section 8. That is what is being done in the War Powers Act: Congress is defining what a "War" is, what the President's restrictions for commencing one are and what Congress' rights to end one are.

The War Powers Act is standing law, period.

As for the issue of the supremacy of a treaty under law, the Supreme Court has spoken on this repeatedly, stating that the Constitution supersedes Treaties. The UN Participation Act of 1945 that Congress passed to delineate our involvement with the organization specifically states that Congress has to Authorize military forces being sent.

Treaties are between two nations, and the nations themselves have to implement them via their own laws; that's the whole premise here.

who for years followed Jesse Helms' crusade AGAINST the U.N., would now make us totally subservient to that body, even at the expense of sovereignty.

Some people just don't think about they preach, you know? They just pick up whatever came out of the last leader's mouth of the party they are a part of, and parrot it as though it is the gospel truth.

HONESTE MIHI VIDETUR PLURIMUM IN MORE DEMOCRATICO SI ONUS PROCLAMANDI BELLI IN QUAVIS FORMA NOSTRO PARLAMENTO DATUM ESSET.
Frankly, it seems rather most democratic to put the onus of declaring war (in any form or another) on the Congress.

CUR AUCTORITATEM EANDEM CORPORI LEGISLATIVO NOSTRO RECUSEMUS DE BELLO?
Why should we deny this prerogative to our legislative body when it comes to matters of war?

ITA VERO, DE GESSU EXECUTIONEQUE BELLI, VERE AUCTORITATEM E CONSTITUTIONE NOSTRA PRAESIDENS HABET.
Now, on handling and managing the war, surely our Executive Branch holds constitutional authority.

TAMEN UT VETEMUS DARE IUS SOLUM ALIQUEM, SIVE QUANDAM OLIGARCHIAM, QUAM SOLUM L PER CENTUM POPULI NON VOTAVERIT AUT PAENE PROBAVERIT QUOVIS MOMENTO NISI DUM TEMPORIBUS RARIS, UT DUM ADMINISTRATIONE DE BUSH, OPUS SIT NON INFORMARE CONSILIAREQUE CUM PARLAMENTO DE BELLO, SED ETIAM ID SINERE INITIARE FACTA BELLICOSA, UT DICANT.
However, in order to prevent a single person from making arbitrary decisions(or small group of people), whom 50% of the people may not have voted for or barely ever approved at any one time or another (save some instances--I'm look at you, G.W.), it seems imperative to not only inform and brief the Congress on matters of war, but to let them kick the ball off, so to speak.

UTIQUE TUA BONA SCRIPTAST.

VALE