I'm one of those Deanics of years past (and present!) and a proud member of the dynamic Democratic club San Mateo County Democracy for America (SMCDFA) here in the San Francisco Bay Area and was honored to be part of the small but mighty delegation that just had a little lunch time chat with the Congressman. We were there to speak as members of the coalition called the Resolution Peace Network and presented a letter asking for him to continue to support the efforts to get out of Iraq. (Letter at the bottom of the diary.)
We asked Congressman Lantos to fight like hell to get us out of Iraq. Well, in so many words...I think I'm the only one that said "hell".
I may not agree with everything Lantos has done as a hawk about Israel and other related middle east issues...but he's the one we've got right now with the bully pulpit of committee chairmanship...and we want him to use it.
We heard a lot about how both House and Senate do not have veto proof majorities and therefore it's difficult to make significant progress...blah blah blah...but that with Warner deciding to retire therefore having nothing to lose, there's an opportunity to get him further on board and possibly bring a few more Republicans with him. As Greg Sargent said, sure is a nice sentiment...but will it happen?
I do believe that Lantos is with us in the support for getting out of Iraq. He said so today, he's said so before, and I've got to believe (sometimes I feel like I should be saying "I believe, I believe...it's silly, but I believe.") he'll keep saying it and pushing for it. We'll have to watch him like a hawk (pun intended) regarding Iran, but for now, he does want us to get out of Iraq...and that's important in and of itself.
Regarding the elections, he seems to be relatively confident that we will gain seats in the House & Senate and will take the White House...another thing I'll hope he's right on. But one of the important thing he emphasizes I'd like to reiterate is that what we we're all doing - not only just what we were doing there today specifically but - together with the sounds of ALL of our voices out there continuing to speak up and speak out and keeping the pressure on is abundantly helpful and important to continue.
And following up on that, I took my opportunity to speak up about speaking out. I wanted to emphasize that although we're in the early frenzy of election next year, we are indeed in a constitutional crisis right NOW. The American people spoke (with what votes we were allowed) in 2006 that we want change. We are continuing to speak in an every increasing volume asking, imploring, demanding...dare I say begging...Congress to fight like hell to make it happen.
He pissed me off a bit when he said that folks were a bit naive to think that this bare majority would be able to make anything significant happen. But dammit...doesn't mean you can't TRY for jeebus sake!! Anyway...I was respectful of my colleagues and the congressman and didn't flip out...but being there in person, I was confident that he knew exactly what I meant.
Overall, I think it was a good meeting. He says he wants to continue to hear from us...and I think he should hear from ALL of us...so don't disappoint him! I may be one who votes for him (or not), but we're ALL his constituents!
Oh...and the wink? He told our dear Ashleigh that he'll give us a wink from the chair, just to let us know he's remembering what we had to say...so help us watch for it!!
L-R: John St. Peter, Greg World, Heather Stewart, Congressman Tom Lantos, Ashleigh Evans, Anne Carey, John Hatfield
August 31, 2007
The Honorable Tom Lantos
U.S. House of Representatives - District Office
400 S. El Camino Real, #410
San Mateo, CA 94402
Representative Lantos:
We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today. The members of our delegation are all 12th Congressional District constituents and members of San Mateo Democracy for America, a grassroots political club chartered by the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee:
Ashleigh Evans, San Mateo
John St. Peter, San Mateo
Greg World, San Mateo
Anne Carey, San Mateo
John Hatfield, Burlingame
Heather Stewart, San Mateo
Today we represent not only our own club, but also a great many other progressive organizations in Northern California: thirty Democratic clubs and central committees (including the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee), and the California Democratic Council (CDC). These activists, numbering in the thousands, are united in a coalition called the Resolution Peace Network. All the Network's member organizations have endorsed the following statement:
We support legislation to:
- Promptly withdraw from Iraq,
- Not attack Iran without congressional approval,
- Take good care of the troops, veterans and their families
Our message to you is simple: We want to thank you for your leadership in the battle to extricate our country from the quagmire in Iraq, encourage you to fight still harder when you return to the Congress next week, and ask how we can help you to attain the goals we share.
You and other Congressional Democratic leaders are in for the fight of your lives come September. You will be standing up for the will of a citizenry who made it clear in last November's election that they want out of Iraq. You will be facing an intractable president, who, with the help of the military, will be doing everything in his power to "stay the course" in this hapless cause, and perhaps lead us into an even worse situation in Iran. Indeed, you are the hope of the nation.
We appreciate the leadership you have demonstrated by your support for legislation against the "surge", for timely troop withdrawal, limiting funds for permanent bases and US control of Iraq oil, as well as minimum rest between troop deployments, supporting the ban on cruel treatment of detainees, and all your votes for legislation that supports our veterans.
We hope that when you return to Washington next week, you will continue to fight for these issues, never flagging until we've extricated ourselves from Iraq. It seems to us that passage of HR 2574, the Iraq Study Group Implementation Act, which has broad bipartisan support, would be a good starting point. We ask that you vote for proposed legislation deauthorizing the Iraq War.
In addition, we hope that when you have the chance again to vote for requiring congressional approval before an attack on Iran, you will vote yes. This is related to the Iraq deauthoriziation legislation: Congress needs to assert itself, and reclaim its right as the branch of government mandated by the Constitution to declare war. Congress is not legally permitted by the Constitution to give away that power. A couple of days ago, we ran across a proposal for a House Concurrent Resolution, based on Section 5c of the War Powers Resolution, which would provide a veto-proof way to remove troops from Iraq. Please take a look at the documents, which follow, and please consider sponsoring this resolution.
For our part, San Mateo County Democracy for America will continue to promote the end of this war from our grassroots position: attending peace vigils, lobbying Congress, and educating the public. Our club is cosponsoring, with Declaration of Peace-San Mateo, a peace march on September 21, which is the International Day of Peace and the kickoff of the Iraq Moratorium, a nationwide project in which citizens will set aside time for antiwar activities and events the third Friday of every month, until the United States is out of Iraq.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to share our strong feelings about these grave issues, which threaten the very life of our beloved country. We look forward to working with you to reach our common goals. Please let us know whenever there is anything we can do to help you.
Sincerely,
Ashleigh Evans
Chair, Out of Iraq Task Force, San Mateo County Democracy for America
Member, San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee
Member, Executive Board of the California Democratic Party
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
House Concurrent Resolution: Directing the President to Remove Forces From Iraq
Congressional leaders complain that there are not enough votes to pass out-of-Iraq bills because of the veto power. Here is a veto-proof method.
See the accompanying draft of a concurrent resolution "Directing the President to Remove Forces From Iraq." It was based on a combination of two elements:
- The idea—expressed by Senator Byrd—that authorization for war does not exist.
- The War Powers Resolution, 5c, which says that troops shall be withdrawn from unauthorized combat abroad if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
As you know, a concurrent resolution is not presented to the president for approval; it needs just a simple majority for adoption.
On May 9, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) said to the Secretary of Defense, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"Secretary Gates, the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq authorized the president to use force for two purposes. The first was to defend the national security of the United States 'against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.' ... The second was, to quote, 'enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iraq.'
Since the government of Iraq that is referred to in the resolution no longer exists, having been replaced by a democratically elected one, do you agree ... that this authorization no longer applies to the ongoing conflict in Iraq?" [Gates said he did not know.]
If there is no authorization for present U.S. actions in Iraq, then Section 5c of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148, from 1973) can be used. The first clause of the accompanying draft quotes it. In addition to Byrd’s argument, the draft offers several other reasons that the Iraq operation is unauthorized.
As a concurrent resolution, it could not be vetoed. Yet, unlike most concurrent resolutions, it would be binding, carrying out an express provision of an existing law. Furthermore, it conforms with Congress’s constitutional supremacy in matters of war and peace. (See http://warandlaw.org: "The Founding Fathers on the Constitution’s War Power" and "Court Rulings Affirming the War Power of Congress.")
The War and Law League, of San Francisco, drafted the resolution. WALL’s legal adviser, Peter Weiss, of New York, wrote that "your idea of basing an out-of-Iraq resolution on Sec. 5c of WPR is a good one and you should suggest it to one or more members of Congress."
Representative Lantos, do you agree that it is a good idea, and will you introduce such a resolution?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
House Concurrent Resolution: Directing the President to Remove Forces From Iraq
Whereas Section 5C of the War Powers Resolution says that "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"; and
Whereas congressional authorization for the U.S. armed services’ forcible occupation of Iraq and involvement in the current civil war does not exist; and
Whereas war on Iraq was not declared by Congress; and
Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 said the president was authorized to use armed forces as he determined to be "necessary and appropriate" only to (1) defend the U.S. against "the threat posed by Iraq" and (2) enforce relevant UN resolutions regarding Iraq; and
Whereas the regime the resolution referred to no longer exists, inasmuch as its sole ruler was deposed and killed; and
Whereas the president of the United States declared the "mission accomplished" and major combat operations ended on May 1, 2003, over four years ago; and
Whereas the appropriation of money for the action in Iraq does not constitute authorization for said action, in view of Section 8A of the War Powers Resolution, which says that authority to introduce armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities shall not be inferred from any provision of law, including any provision contained in any appropriations act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of armed forces into hostilities; and
Whereas in any case the authorization-for-force resolution was fatally defective, because:
• Iraq was no threat at all; the resolution was based on the president’s insistence that Iraq had to be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction; it was his prewar reason for the necessity of a war, but after it began he admitted that Iraq had no such weapons;
• No United Nations resolution on Iraq called for enforcement by means of war;
• The Charter of the United Nations, a binding treaty of the United States, bars the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state";
• The Pact of Paris (Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact), a binding treaty of the United States, prohibits war as an instrument of national policy;
• Congress cannot lawfully delegate away its exclusive constitutional authority to decide whether or not it is "necessary and appropriate" for the United States to go to war:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring); that
- No authorization for U.S. action in Iraq exists.
- Any prior measure purporting to provide such authorization is null and void.
- The president is directed to remove all U.S. armed forces from Iraq promptly
______________________________________________________________
WALL, P.O. Box 42-7237, San Francisco, CA 94142; warandlaw@yahoo.com; tel. 415-564-2083 or 415-738-8298