No transcript is up yet since it happen last night.
But Republican Eric Cantor in a interview with Tweety, blatantly stated that since the War Powers Act of 1973 the president has the authority to got to war without authorization of Congress.
Apparently Cantor can't read, or is smoking some good stuff. Please share I want to go to the happy place too.
UPDATE: Thanks to phriendlyjamie for a link to the transcript.
First, Crashing Vor beat me to the punch. I, too, saw HardBall and was going to blog it last night. I nearly had a stroke when Eric Cantor said the President has the authority to declare war. So I decided to do an analysis, in addition to voicing my anger. Granted, a President has "extensive" war powers written into the Constitution, but so does Congress.
US Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8
Scope of Legislative War Powers
...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...
US Constitution, Article 2, Sec. 2
Scope of Presidential War Powers
...The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;...
(emphasis by me)
Yep, that's right. Before the War Powers Act of 1973, this was the extent of the presidential war powers. Not only that, they didn't even kick in until Congress authorized war (please note: "...when called into the actual service of the United States.")
Now, introduce the War Powers Act of 1973. Essentially, the act was meant to provide "clarification" of the role Congress, and the President, during war, but also to provide emergency contingencies for unforseen circumstances. But even within those emergency contingencies Congress asserts its authority as the "law maker".
War Powers Act of 1973, Section 2.b
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The executive's role is spelled out as well:
War Powers Act of 1973, Section 2.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.
(emphasis by me)
So let's do a little analysis here:
The attacks on 9-11 and subsequently going to Afghanistan would fall under under the War Powers Act, Section 2.c.3 - emergency clause
Unfortunately, the Iraq Resolution falls (not neatly) under War Powers Act, Section 2.c.2 - specific statutory authorization - Since the Congress did authorize specifics for going into war with Iraq, if the need should arise. However, as a part of the authorization, the president was to exhaust all diplomatic avenues which he did NOT do. Which is why a formal declaration of war from Congress, or emergency hostile engagement, should be the only way a president should be able to war.
The drumbeat to go into Iran would NOT fall under any existing declaration of war, any existing statutory authorization, nor is it a emergency. So you would think that this would end the conversation on "Does he, or Does he not have the authority to start war with Iran", we'll see later that Bush may be trying to use a clause in the War Powers Act -- more to point Bush is provoking the Iranians inorder to trigger the clause. It is the 'Reporting' section of the War Powers Act
War Powers Act of 1973, Section 4
(Sec.4.a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(Sec.4.a.1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(Sec.4.a.2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(Sec.4.a.3.A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(Sec.4.a.3.B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(Sec.4.a.3.C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(Sec.4.b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
(Sec.4.c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
We all know that the probable way Bush wants to enter Iran, is by provoking Iran to attack then retaliating. By Iran "attacking us" in Iraq, we can claim hostile actions towards the Armed Forces thus we must persue, without Congressional authorization. Section 4 as whole says the president can do so as long as he reports back to Congress the progress (how well has that gone so far? - remember the NIE).
Also for those numbnuts who think the Congress does not have the power to bring home the troops, whether they cut funding or not. Section 5 clears up that matter.
War Powers Act of 1973, Sec.5.c
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
(emphasis by me)
Now, the problem is the "concurrent" part, which means both houses of Congress must issue a resolution requiring the troops to come home. And right now with only a majority in the House and a slim majority in the senate, thats pretty much mute. Unless we see some courageous republicans.......
Haaaaaaaaaa.......oh sorry, let me compose myself.
eh hum, ...that's where we the grassroots, or netroots come in. We need to get a greater majority in the Senate.
In closing, if Eric Cantor wants to bring attention to the War Powers Act I'll let him. It bolsters our case, more than his.