To american users

ellie

Emperor
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,673
Location
uk
Can you help clear something up for me?

Im not too hot on american process, can president bush declare war or does congress do that?.

If its the latter, is it a sure thing will would do so?, ie does he have their full backing?

Ellie
 
Normaly the Congress is the only one that can aprove the Declaration of war against another country. But events leading up to the Vietnam War changed things around and opened up some loopholes.
 
It's worse in the UK.

Our Prime Minister can do what he wants regarding invading other countries. Parliment are toothless.
 
Nod annarres, to be fair he HAS promised voting before action.

I admit im still confused, if he cant declare war, how can he send in troops.

A war without declaration of war..hmmm
 
The President can send troops into battle for hmmm i think 90 days and then he must replace them.
I think it was the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that gave him the power...
 
can president bush declare war or does congress do that?.
Only Congress can declare war but as CivGeneral said there are loopholes to the system. The other way Congress can affect war plans or than the declaration of war is withholding funds since the House of Representative controls the country's purse strings. However I believe Congress has already given the greenlight to any action in Iraq.
Another question? How about a veto?
Need a 2/3 majority to override a veto.
Our Prime Minister can do what he wants regarding invading other countries. Parliment are toothless.
That isn't technically correct. The power of war is reserved for the monarch, however in effect it is has now been given to the Prime Minister.
I admit im still confused, if he cant declare war, how can he send in troops.
The President is Commander-in-Chief.
 
Need a 2/3 majority to override a veto.

What I meant: Can a veto be used for anything? even for declaring war? Or just for minor topics?
 
Originally posted by MrPresident
That isn't technically correct. The power of war is reserved for the monarch, however in effect it is has now been given to the Prime Minister.
Technical schmecnical. We both know that the monarch has no power.

The armed forces do what the Prime Minister says.
 
We both know that the monarch has no power.
She uses no power, big difference.
The armed forces do what the Prime Minister says.
Or the war cabinet.
Can a veto be used for anything? even for declaring war? Or just for minor topics?
Veto are used for bills. And there is no point in declaring war if the President doesn't want it since he controls the armed forces.
 
What if a majority in congress is anti-war. But 1/3 +1 is pro war. Can a president declare war in that situation?
 
Actually the power of the queen to declare war (known as the royal perogative) has been restricted by parliment. She must now seek ministerial approval before making a declaration of war.

The royal perogative is the means used by prime ministers to take actions without taking it through parliment. A recent example is edward heath using the royal perogative to take us into the EEC.

The royal perogative is a complex issue, however in THEORY the queen has the power to veto any declaration of law.

Ellie
 
And in fact, Parliament is not toothless; it has it within its own power to ram through a law forbidding a war in a particular place, or it can promise to restrict appropriations for the war (which is now Congress's chief leverage over the President post-Vietnam).
It's just that there are too many cowards who don't want to lose their plushy cabinet jobs for that to happen, since you'd need a parliament engaged enough to interrupt the government agenda, which is no mean feat and would probably require some cabinet "errors" or defections, particularly in the house leader's office.

Plus, US law does have provisions to allow Congress to override foreign deployments after a certain time period has passed.
 
Originally posted by ellie
Can you help clear something up for me?

Im not too hot on american process, can president bush declare war or does congress do that?.

If its the latter, is it a sure thing will would do so?, ie does he have their full backing?

Ellie

As others have pointed out...the President can use troops for a limited period of time, after which he must consult with congress. In the current instance he has two Congressional resolutions backing him, one to do whatever is necessary against terrorists and the other specific to Iraq.
 
The President can in fact declare war on Iraq. Congress passed something to that effect back in October. They, in essence, abdicated their power of declaring war to him.
 
The Executive branch is mandated to protect America from "foreign slight forces" (essentially anything dangerous to America). Following this mandate, the President can send troops anywhere he wishes to do whatever he wishes without a declaration of war. This power has waxed and waned depending on the relationship between the Pres and Congress and has even been regulated by specific laws passed by Congress. These have included a mandatory order that the President must notify Congress before beginning police actions and that Congress must justify the actions within a certain time frame or troops must be recalled.

The reality is that the President can do what he needs to do and there is little that Congress could do to stop or even limit him without destroying their own careers (which your average politician is loathe to do).

To get back to the original question, President Bush cannot declare war at all. He can only request that Congress do so. That is essentially a rubber stamp to Presidential action though as no declaration of war is required under US laws for the President to effect war upon a foreign threat.
 
The President can in fact declare war on Iraq. Congress passed something to that effect back in October. They, in essence, abdicated their power of declaring war to him.
They didn't abdicate their power. They used it. Congress has, in effect, declared war on Iraq. They are just waiting for the President to start that war.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident

They didn't abdicate their power. They used it. Congress has, in effect, declared war on Iraq. They are just waiting for the President to start that war.

There's been a declaration of war on Iraq? Funny I didn't see any headlines about this. Could you provide a link?
 
It sounds similar to the falklands in many ways, no formal declaration of war was made then, it was a @conflict@

Ellie
 
Back
Top Bottom