Rep. Jones introduces bill to limit president's war powers

[melm00se]

Source: New Bern Sun Journal (Jones' district's local paper)

WASHINGTON — Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina has introduced a bill to prevent the use of U.S. military force in war without the consent of Congress.

The bipartisan legislation would amend the United States War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was passed in response to the extended Vietnam War.

Jones submitted the bill Sept. 25 and announced it Thursday at a press conference with three of five co-sponsors. One of them, Rep. Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, a Democrat, is a member of the House subcommittee on foreign affairs which will first hear the bill. Also present were Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, both Republicans. The other co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii and and Rep. Robert Brady of Pennsylvania, both Democrats.

Read more: http://www.newbernsj.com/news/bill_37205___article.html/war_jones.html

---

from a Republican no less.

[acmavm]

1. Good for him. I don't care who proposes this legislation.

[lil d]

32. Damn Right!

Well, yeah. You just have to be human to know what's right. Even a Republican can sometimes achieve such a warm blooded state.

[ginnyinWI]

33. He's been anti-war for a very long time. n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

47. Since about 2006.

This is Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones. He is not so much anti-war as an early-jumping rat.

[ginnyinWI]

49. from what this this article says,

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/01/the_three_conversions_of_walter_b_jones.html

It appears that the "conversion" happened between early 2005 and November 2005, when he first put his name on something anti-war. The article was published January 2006. So he was comparatively early.

[Toots]

2. Republicans will line up on this one

They know a Democrat will be our next President and there is no way in hell they will permit a Democrat to have any powers similar to what this piece of trash we have now claims for himself. They will wait until our treasury is built back up again and then raid it once more.

[Ninja Jordan]

9. Good point.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Good for them

No president should have these kinds of powers. I support anyone in Congress who favors eliminating them. Sometimes it's about country more than party.

[kysrsoze]

26. Not that we'll actually need it with a Democratic president - more insane Repub projection

[legaltender]

34. Oh, that explains why

we're out of Kosovo now.

[Thothmes]

45. Democratic president

Can you say President Lyndon B Johnson. The law is needed.

[NC_Nurse]

3. This from Mr. Freedom Fries.

At least he had a change of heart.

[rodeodance]

4. I give credit to people who 'see the light'-----even if late in doing so. And they

should not be dissed for changing their minds.

[whathappened]

5. read

post 2 and get back to us on this matter

[MikeNY]

12. What about

When they change their minds based on political expediency? Hmm?

[dickbearton]

42. There is more to this dip-shit, Freedom Fries, then the war. Smarten up, see the light.

[Redstone]

44. Hey, why not call the poster a Republican? You like to do that.

Redstone

[rurallib]

31. He saw the light shortly after that

For a Repug he's not too bad.

[johnp]

6. It will never see the light of day

This bill will never see the light of day and the reason is because Congress had given up the Constitutional declaration that it is Congress who declares war, not the President. I believe Congress gave that power to the President because after a 2 term limit was placed on the President it only seemed logical to turn over the power to make war to the President in order to avoid any lingering political fallout over a failed war. In other words, the lifers we have up there in Congress can keep their jobs forever because they can always say that the failed war we undertook were part of that past Presidents failed agenda and not me, "I didn't vote for it". Its a great way to avoid responsibility for any war that went wrong. However I have a long memory and I will always remember which Democrat (Hillary I am looking your way) voted for the crappy wars and I will work forever to ensure that they don't get re-elected and everyone knows who they are.

[L. Coyote]

7. K & R & Impeach two too

[AlecBGreen]

8. a few points

“This has nothing to do with Iraq,” said Jones, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and was one of the first Republican congressmen to oppose the war in Iraq.

“This has to do with the Constitution and it has to do with the future,” said Jones. “From what I have seen Congress has not met its constitutional duty regarding oversight.”

...

“This has a ways to go but when this becomes law, it offers firm guidance as to the role of Congress as the country goes to war,” he said.

The 30-page bill outlines congressional responsibility regarding checks and balances.

---------------

To borrow from Bill-O: "Yo! Bring me some oversight m'fer!"

[dansolo]

10. Bush will veto it

He will either veto it, or issue a signing statement making it ineffective.

[humbled_opinion]

35. He sure is one hell of a healthy lame duck don't ya think.

Our Democratic representatives in Congress need to stand up for Something becasue right now they are lying down for everything...

[MikeNY]

11. And when this fails or gets veto'd...

The United States will cease to exist as a republic if the Presidency is allowed to continue unabated. President Bush has truly extended this abuse further in the last 8 years. If this bill does not pass, which let’s face it, it probably won’t, we are in serious trouble. Any historian or political science expert who understands Constitutional law and the intention of the founding fathers knows that the office of the President is prohibited from committing acts of war without a war resolution.

Anyone that argues against this usually brings up President Jefferson’s attack against pirates in Tripoli during the early 19th century. But they are all WRONG on the facts. The Congress passed dozens of statutes allowing him to protect ships and take down said pirates!

In fact, when the Constitution was written, most of the founders anticipated that Presidential authority, if unchecked for too long, would continue to grow until the Presidency itself became the seat of a tyrant. Do you really want this type of future for your kids?? It is amazing to me that minority Senate Republicans are still groveling at Bush’s feat. Not just them, but some Democrats as well.

In this case, whose interests are they truly serving by allowing him to maintain his immunity and continue his abuse of power? Certainly not the interests of the American people.

[mlevans]

19. If this bill does not pass, which let’s face it, it probably won’t, we are in serious trouble.

No offense intended certainly, but are you suggesting that we're not already in serious trouble? My take on it is that we have been for quite some time.

[flyingfysh]

22. or Bush could just issue a signing statement

saying he can ignore it.

[awoke_in_2003]

39. "The United States will cease to exist as a republic"

many may not want to admit it, but we ceased to be a republic a long time ago. Our elected "representatives" do not represent us, they represent the interests of big business. They just allow the public to have enough to keep them fat, dumb and happy to prevent a revolt.

[Stuckinthebush]

14. Police Action

Does it define what a war is? I can see presidents (especially Bush) going around it by using a word other than "war".

[focusfan]

15. I am happy I just hope it goes through

maybe this will slow Bush and his croonies down.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. OK, so they won't refer to "the action" as a war,

and the troops will be sent off anyway.

[derby378]

17. This is very, very, VERY bad for Democrats

This was supposed to be our opportunity to show the world that we could rein in Herr Decider. Now the Republicans are determined to show that they can clean their own house. Bad form for the Dems on Capitol Hill to let this issue get away from them.

[RiverStone]

30. bad for the sheeple, yet good for the country

Yea, maybe the Dems blew it - of course too many have been too complicit for a long time.

Though at this point, with 2 draft age teenagers - I don't give a shit if the Green party got credit; ANYTHING to reign in the decider is a good thing for everybody - make it the whole planet!

[truedelphi]

40. Two teenagers? And still sane enough to post on yr free time?

Sorry about the mess the world is in while your kids are coming of age.

It is so scary, isn't it.

And of course with the Fourth Reich in power, maybe even my 30-something son will find himself in the Middle East. I sometimes feel they won't give up till all of us are forced to pay a price for their mistakes over there.

[ozone_man]

18. It's about time.

Maybe the Republicans can help the Democrats with spinal implants.

[robinlynne]

20. thank goodness for a little bit of sanity.

[downindixie]

21. Wasn't the Korean war a police action?

[HereSince1628]

27. And Truman was damned near impeached for trying to nationalize

steel production using the need for military goods for the Korean war as a justification.

My point is that Presidents, red, blue, and purple use the legal leverages that they can effectively make claim to.

Whatever latitude they have in their discretion they will push them past the limit.

In a world of ballistic missles with leaders who have a mentality of 'use em or lose em and the nation' there is always going to be a claim for the need for presidents to be able to act prior to consulting congress.

That notion sucks and needs a serious work-around.

[bdamomma]

23. they better reign this maniac in if not the people will not stand for this

any longer. This little man needs a reality check.

[FatDave]

38. The people will noty stand for this?

Which people are those? The Canadian people? Us Americans are far too busy with our bread and circuses.

[peaches2003]

41. What do you mean 'won't stand for it'?

The majority of the American people love a war lord. Why else is Guiliani leading the Repug candidates- no one is more bellicose than he is and look at his advisors. Neo-cons all. And Hillary with a big lead among Dems. She is all for Bush's wars.

[mwb970]

24. bush must be brought under adult human control.

He is threatening the world with his inexplicable behavior.

[The Stranger]

25. The War Party crosses the Democratic and Republican lines.

Now, apparently, there is an opposition.

[Javaman]

28. queue the signing statement. nt

[ooglymoogly]

29. Gathering changling hero's

It is nice to know the wheat from the chaff...or in the case of this congress the wheat from the mold. At least this critter has washed away some of the creaping mold.

[provis99]

36. this bill is dead on arrival. Why is it even news?

[happygoluckytoyou]

37. GEORGE DUBYA HERE.... GOT A FEW THINGS TO TELL YOU--->

1) i am the decider and i have not decisioned this yet
2) any republican who votes for this is off my christmas list
3) i am the commode and chief here... will someone please follow me
4) i want to put FEMA in charge of all future wars
5) i'm putting fred's wife on my MILF list
6) its okay with me...just a moment....have to add a signing statement here..... UNLESS...I...DON'T...WANT...TO
7) i spoke to god and he says you are all sinners so i dont have to listen to you

[WestMichRad]

43. Permit me to fantasize about this...

Let it specify not just war, but ANY military involvement away from US property.

Let it require a 2/3 majority from both House and Senate to approve military action.
Hey, if they can require 2/3 for new tax levies in CA because of Prop 13, at least as stringent an action should be necessary to commit the huge financial resources consumed by our military and put our young men and women into jeopardy.

Can't see our current Congress passing this bill, let alone the Great Pretender signing it, so I may as well dream...

Peace is ALWAYS the better option.

[Ian_rd]

46. So conservatives still exist? I'm relieved.

My conservative Dad taught me that a tenet of American Conservatism is strict adherence to the Constitution, especially in the realm of limiting the power of the government or for that matter, any particular branch of it. It's nice to see some real conservatives are still in Washington, as opposed to fascists.

[kenfrequed]

48. About time

We could have used this far earlier than now.

Still, at least this seems to be a legislative step in the right direction, and no one can argue that it isn't more constitutional since our founders intended to put War Powers exclusively in the hands of congress.

[Buns_of_Fire]

50. House Joint Resolution 53

If you care to wade through it, here's the LINK.

I found nothing in it that suggests it wouldn't take effect immediately. Of course, one Q&D signing statement from would take care of THAT little omission.

[olddad56]

51. pissing into the wind.

We don't live in a democarcy, haven't for a long time, get over it, move on. Any attempt to reign in these crazed men will only force them to resort to more extreme and violent measures. The demos don't have the votes in either house anyway.

[lovuian]

52. Thank You but a little late I'm thinking we will be in WWIII by

then but good try