You are herecontent / Congress never voted for this war

Congress never voted for this war

War Powers: the Hijacking of the Constitution?
"...Congress never voted for this war..."

Washington, D.C. - Institute for Public Accuracy - infoZine - Author of the just-released book "War Powers: How the Imperial Presidency Hijacked the Constitution," Peter Irons said yesterday: "There's no question that John Roberts is an advocate of virtually unlimited executive power. He has already voted on the circuit court to allow the president to hold alleged enemy combatants indefinitely, for example in Guantanamo. It's ironic that the supposed advocates of 'original intent' don't apply that doctrine when it comes to war powers -- the framers made it clear that the Congress and not the president should make decisions about going to war." Irons has written several books about the Supreme Court including "A People's History of the Supreme Court." -

While a senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel was a noted critic of the Vietnam War. Gravel was quoted on an Institute for Public Accuracy news release on Aug. 2, 2002: "This is a déjà vu of Tonkin and the evidence seems to be as flimsy. (Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William) Fulbright's biggest regret, he would later say, was signing off on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. The incident was a lie about a supposed attack on U.S. vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin, fabricated by the Johnson government to give legitimacy to the expansion of the Vietnam War. There seems to be a similar rush to a 'Tonkin judgment' in the Senate to give the Bush administration legitimacy for an attack on Iraq."

Gravel said yesterday: "Many are now lobbying and protesting against the Iraq war, which is fine; but lobbying and protesting put the people in the position of begging. The solutions lie with the people; not with the political leadership, which has the power of lawmaking. For the last several years, I have been working on a proposal called the National Initiative on Democracy. This would give lawmaking powers to the people, so we can truly have government by the people." Gravel is chairman of the Democracy Foundation.

John Bonifaz is a constitutional attorney and the author of the book "Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush." He is part of a lobbying effort by over 700 people on the Iraq war since the major protests this weekend. He said yesterday: "A big lie being told about this war is that Congress voted for this war. Congress never voted for this war. Congress gave an unlawful blank check [on Oct. 10, 2002] to the president to decide whether or not to wage war against Iraq. The war powers clause of the Constitution makes clear that Congress, and only Congress, has the power to wage a war against another nation. This is not a power that can be transferred to the president. The dangers inherent in allowing one individual to make this decision for the nation are evident for all to see in connection with this war. This war was illegal from the start. Congress should exercise its constitutional responsibilities and end this war now." Bonifaz is co-founder of the coalition.

On an ABC Nightline "Townhall Meeting" about the then-impending attack on Iraq on March 4, 2003, Jen Carr asked Sen. John McCain and Sen. Carl Levin: "What do you plan to do to make sure that the voices of the American people are heard and represented?" (Carr is "Female Four," halfway through the transcript, and is followed by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. asking a followup.) She said yesterday: "We're in a situation where it's apparent that the citizens' voices need to be listened to."


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"I have been working on a proposal called the National Initiative on Democracy ... so we can truly have government by the people." -- Mike Gravel

Gee, I thought the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were intended to achieve just that. At least some former presidents, like Abraham Lincoln, seemed to think that's what previous wars were being fought to preserve. Were they mistaken, or is the real problem that you and your congressional colleagues have since sold out your sworn representational responsibilities to the highest bidders?

"We're in a situation where it's apparent that the citizens' voices need to be listened to." -- Jen Carr

WOW! What a novel concept. But I'd be interested in learning about your collective criteria for such situations. If we understood what they are, we might at least be able to understand why politicians think it's OK to ignore citizens' voices so much of the time.

Painful sufferer of all that is evil and rotten in this world...including within my own heart

Cartoon of the week:

George W Bush says many powerful and insightful things. See if you can find one of them in this political cartoon.

Just a few weeks ago, a highly significant judicial decision was handed down by the German Federal Administrative Court but barely mentioned in the German media. With careful reasoning, the judges ruled that the assault launched by the United States and its allies against Iraq was a clear war of aggression that violated international law.

Further, they meticulously demonstrated that the German government, in contrast to its public protestations, had assisted in the aggression against Iraq without having any legal right to do so. Although the decision was made three months ago, the judgement and its legal arguments have only just been made available in written form, comprising more than 130 pages.

Turkmenistan: Stop Religious Persecution

NGO Coalition Call on US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to designate Turkmenistan as a "country of particular concern"

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
U.S. Department of State
Washington D.C. 20520

David, I hate to tell you but the Constitution is a dead letter. It means nothing anymore. When a USDC SR. Judge (Fox) admits on the record in 2003 that the President and Congress have been in collusion violating the war powers for a long time and that their long course of history has changed the Constitution. "...there is less hesitancy in the executive branch to preserve (the Constitution). It's just like kids who break a rule the first 200 times and after a while they don't care; they don't asknowledge that the rule exists..." So, see how the Constitution is amended by ignoring it and over time that portion is changed. This Judge, on the record, even goes on and admits that the 16th Amendment was probably never ratified but it's part of the Constituion now. So, when they change it despite taking an oath to preserve and protect it, it becomes law. You can read about this at America's government has been usurped and there is nothing we can do about it because they have their gate-keepers at the door.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from




Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.