The GWOT Resolution does't enumerate any powers, but instead authorizes "all necessary and appropriate force."

The question then becomes whether or not "all" should include "items hiterto prohibited." Logically the answer is yes. If "all" just mean "all things already allowed," then the document is meaningless -- which it clearly was not intended to be.

If Congress dislikes authorizing "all" things, I advise the Congress to ponder the meaning of kindergarten-level English words the next time around! Or perhaps a new resolution?

I suspect that I would find few outside of Congress to contest this statement: to a very large degree, the cause of political problems in America today rests with the desire of Congressmen to avoid committing decisively to any issue that is not merely cosmetic.

For example, there is the passage of authorizations of force, rather than explicit declarations of war. Everyone knows they are declarations of war, and they act as if that's what they were doing, but by calling it an authorization to use force, they can come back years later and say the President is exceeding his authority because the Congress didn't declare war.

Similarly, devolving its powers to regulate, say, environmental matters to executive agencies allows Congressmen to avoid having to face electoral challenges based on stupid, costly or harmful regulations. Or when Congress passes a bill that it knows to be blatantly unconstitutional, on the grounds that it's the Supreme Court's job to stop unconstitutional (but popular with some electoral groups) laws.

It really, really ticks me off, if you couldn't tell.

Jeff,

I agree with the general criticism -- the Americans with Disabilities Act is the worst such bill in recent years. Still, it doesn't change that the resolution was resolved.

First, in response to Dan's comments about the word "all" being the key word in the phrase "all necessary and appropriate force", I would propose that this idea is not only wrong, but preposterous. In this case, "appropriate" is really the key, as in "It's absolutely NOT appropriate for the administration to use a quasi-declaration of war against a foreign power as an excuse for spying on it's own citizens on it's own soil." Whether it's "necessary" is really what people are debating. I don't believe it's even close to being justified. There's no evidence that there are any more foreign spies in the US than there have been in years/decades/centuries past. We simply have an administration that is willing to trample it's constituents' rights into the ground for any, or no, reason. Of course, this is the same troop of clowns that brought us the magically vanishing WNDs. Or, failed to bring them to us, really.

And, while I agree with Jeff's basic idea that Congress is more interested in divesting itself of responsibility than in doing its job, that wasn't the reason for their passage of the
"Authorization for Use of Military Force" instead of an actual Act of War. The reason, as I'm sure many recall, is that Congress was not convinced that an Act of War was appropriate. (Uh oh, there's that word, again.) They half-caved, in giving Bush the Authorization, but they didn't totally cave and declare War. As no rational being actually believed the Administration's case for going to war, I give them half-credit for this one. In the political-emotional climate of the time, that wasn't a bad compromise. It's how it's being misused that's criminal.

"There's no evidence that there are any more foreign spies in the US than there have been in years/decades/centuries past. "

It's surprising you choose to compare al Qaeda operatives to foreign spies quantitatively (by counting numbers), as this implies you don't see a qualitative difference (al Qaeda being an NGO actively fighting the United States, Country X being a state with realistic interests, etc.)

"The reason, as I'm sure many recall, is that Congress was not convinced that an Act of War was appropriate."

I recall the Administration pressuring Congressmen not to issue a formal declaration of war, but regardless, the importance of the correct paperwork in invoking certain phrases of II/8 of the US Constitution

" To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

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; "

is unclear.

If it's criminal, push impeachment. Please, please push it. The GOP could use the extra seats in the Congress ;-)