North Korea, Congress, & the Constitution
c.sartwell at verizon.net
Mon Sep 19 05:51:02 PDT 2005
i argued from the beginning in a series of columns that the administration's justifications for war could be disproven by parallel cases. if we had actually thought that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, we would have had an endless patience in negotiation, as with north korea. if the question were actually human rights, we'd have invaded the sudan. that insanely open-ended congressional resolution has already yielded a de facto suspension of habeas corpus as well as a failed war.
associate prof of political science
>From: RJLipkin at aol.com
>Date: Mon Sep 19 06:33:37 CDT 2005
>To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: North Korea, Congress, & the Constitution
> The NY Timesreports today that North Korea has agreed in principle to abandon its nuclear weapons program. The article also indicates that this agreement is contrary to what hard-liners in the administration would concede to be possible. Doesn't diplomatic success, if that's what it turns out to be, with North Korea prove the poverty of the administration's argument for invading Iraq, if anyone still needs proof? More important, doesn't this suggest that the constitutional process through which president's procure some sort of congressional statement authorizing the use of force totally impoverished? Unless a president has collateral reasons for choosing to invade one country (in this context) simply on the grounds (uncorroborated it now seems) that its leader wanted to develop nuclear weapons, but negotiates with one that actually possesses them, distinguishing approaches in this manner seems a rather senseless policy. Not only is a Congress (including, of course, prominent weak-willed Democrats) which simply provides knee-jerk consent to waging war dangerous, but the existence of such a congressional process that permits this seems clearly incompatible with constitutional text and the reason for giving Congress and only Congress the constitutional authority to declare war in the first place. Bobby The article can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/international/asia/19korea.html?hp&ex=1127188800&en=1cab1bb77582f12a&ei=5094&partner=AOL Robert Justin Lipkin
>Professor of Law
>Widener University School of Law
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof