Quote:

---

Ferris said:
You could see by the tone of the floor debates, and more specifically the proposed amendments (all failed), that there was concern that the resolution would be used to justify a full-scale war.

If I remember correctly, it was made in response to multiple airspace violations on the part of the Iraqis, and was meant to add legality to measured responses.

Also, included in the language of the bill would have been a line that read something like "the president uses his best judgment to determine how to use the order."  Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say that a lot of the false accusations and other misleading statements from the administration used to justify the war, negate the bill entirely.

In another age, congress might have done anything from censor to impeach the president for this breach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#cite_note-ResolutionText-0

---

Quote:

---

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—

(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and ter-
rorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the ter-
rorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WARPOWERSRESOLUTIONREQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFICSTATUTORYAUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statu-
tory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHERREQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

---

Quote:

---

johnm214 said:
Their may be concern, but the presence of failed amendments is strong evidence, to those idiots who look at legislative intent, that there was no intent to pass such provisions as were in the failed amendments.

---

Quote:

---

Phred said:
There is no "limited" authorization there. It is authorization to use military force in dealing with Saddam Hussein. Period.




Phred

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
I'm sorry, but elections don't legitimize an invasion after the fact, especially when that foreign army is occupying the country

---

Quote:

---

I didn't ask about Iran... I've asked repeatedly, are you saying there is no functional limit or that there is no limit whatsoever to what and why bush could have used force in iraq?

---

Quote:

---

The US declared a limited authorization for military force.  That's not a decleration of war in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

And the whole issue is whether the Bush adminsitration followed the declaration, which I think a credible case can be made that they did not.

---