Howard Phillips: U.S. Can't Attack Iraq Unless Congress Declares War

Howard Phillips: U.S. Can't Attack Iraq Unless Congress Declares War

Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 24, 2002

WASHINGTON – "There is no war on terrorism. Congress has not declared any such war.”

With those words, a three-time presidential hopeful told a weekend seminar sponsored by Accuracy in Academia that President Bush should not go to war with Iraq without the constitutional blessing of a formal declaration of war.

War with Iraq, hotly debated within conservative as well as left-wing circles, would best gain the necessary legitimacy if the president and Congress follow their constitutionally proscribed duties before such an undertaking, according to former "third party” candidate Howard Phillips.

Phillips, whose bid for the presidency in 2000 was under the banner of the Constitution Party, reminded his audience the Constitution of the United States plainly says the Congress shall have the power to declare war.

U.S. 'Lost Every Undeclared War'

"It is an interesting fact that our country has won every declared war and lost every undeclared war,” said the president of the Conservative Caucus Research, Analysis, and Education Foundation Inc.

He cited the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II as the declared wars in which the U.S. was victorious.

By contrast, Phillips said, the U.S. lost in the Korean War, "which was a police action … under the authority of the United Nations;" Vietnam, which "was not a declared war,” for which the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was no substitute for a Declaration of War; and Desert Storm.

Desert Storm? The Gulf War where then-President George H.W. Bush triumphantly declared the U.S. "beat the Vietnam syndrome”?

"I would posit that Desert Storm was a war that we lost,” insisted Phillips, "because Saddam Hussein remained in power, etc.

"The reason you lose undeclared wars is because the Congress has not defined the objects of war,” the conservative leader argued.

'We Have Not Defined the Enemy'

"We have not defined the enemy, nor have we defined our military objectives. And that is why … there is more frustration about the supposed war on terrorism.”

President Bush "is now talking about war on Iraq,” Phillips noted. "You can make a case for it. You can make a case against it.

"But what you can’t oppose is the clear obligation of the president of the United States to secure a declaration of war from the Congress of the United States before he initiates action in Iraq or elsewhere.

"We will suffer greatly,” he warned, "whenever we fail to adhere to the Constitution of the United States.”

Howard Phillips, by any standard a "strict constructionist” on adherence to the document that for more than 200 years has been the foundation for U.S. government, also made the following observations:

No 'Separation of Church and State'

There is nothing in the Constitution that proclaims a "separation of church and state.” It does posit "a non-establishment of a church.” That is not the same thing, even though "separation of church and state” is often cited to drive religion out of America’s public square.

For example, a court decision saying one cannot recite the phrase "under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is "totally beyond the authority of any federal court.”

Already, when one seeks federal office (as Phillips did in 1992, 1996 and 2000), it is necessary to "set aside hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure that you have not violated, either civilly or criminally, the rules promulgated by the Federal Election Commission.”

'Outrage' of Campaign Finance 'Reform'

This is compounded by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform” law, which "violates the First Amendment’s stipulation” that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. The former presidential hopeful believes this is "a total outrage, and this should be abolished.”

Article 3 of the Constitution "clearly limits the authority of the judicial branch.” The Supreme Court was specifically created in the Constitution, Phillips noted. "But all of the inferior [other federal] courts are creatures of Congress,” including, of course, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the "Under God” phrase in the Pledge.

"Congress created them. Congress can abolish them” and "can refuse to appropriate any money for a district court or appellate court with whose actions they disagree.” The president can veto any such appropriations.

Judicial Nominees

If President Bush is serious about getting his judicial nominees on the bench (a problem stemming from the political recalcitrance of Senate leftists who are dragging their feet in the confirmation process), "he can use his recess appointment authority …. And while a recess appointment only lasts until the next session of Congress, a lot can be accomplished by a judge during that period of time.”

That would force the Senate Judiciary Committee "to take action because they [the judges] serve until their successors are appointed.”

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Phillips/Constitution Party

Saddam Hussein/Iraq

A product that might interest you:
Saddam Hussein’s race to make a nuclear bomb