I'm interested in learning more about such a resolution before I support it.

It does not seem to me, from the information I've found, that this resolution would fully revoke the President's authority to wage war or declare war. I would not support such a resolution.

Particular to this case however, my feelings are different (if it is limited to the conflict with Iraq).

I do have questions about what the results of such a resolution would be. As the war is already in progress, it obviously cannot prevent the war. Pulling our troops out now is also not an option-such an action would flush any remaining credibility we still have.

So, is this largely a symbolic effort? I ask you, what good is this going to do? What are the desired outcomes of such a resolution? Isn't it too late?

I'd be thankful for any additional information on this resolution. I think I agree with many of the ideas involved, yet I want to see an explanation, and a plan for what would take place if such a resolution were inacted.

Sincerely,

C.L.Wright

Mr. Hastert and whom it may concern:

I am infavor if untroducing HJResolution 20 for a vote. This is an unjust war. We have no right to invade a country in this day and age without and invitation and without international support.The middle class people are going to be the one's to pay for this war., and innocent people's blood will be on our leaders hands. Your children and my children are the one's that will feel the sting from this war as the reprocussions grow heavier and heavier upon America. We as a people have to live in this world, full of everyday people. We do not have the luxury of sitting in the white house or some government office and closing our eyes to this tragedy. A possitive responsible society is constructive and humane not destructive . Thank you for taking a stand and best regards. Dianne Zankich

Would like to see a response to the C.L. Wright post of 3/29 before I take action on this.

As I understand it HJ Resolution 20 would repeal PUBLIC LAW 107-243. PUBLIC LAW 107-243 was passed last october and gave the president power to attack Iraq. The repeal would require the president to ask congress for the authority to military action. I dont know how this would effect the current conflict.

B, Thanks for the response. Question remaining is what's the point? Our Congress saw fit to authorize the use of force in the first place. This seems a little ex-post-facto. Have heard this will somehow facilitate our president's indictment as a war criminal, etc. I just don't get it. CL Wright has good questions that I would like to see answered.

The following comes from the website: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm

Where I did a search for HJ Resolution 20

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 20
To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 5, 2003
Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. LEE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. OWENS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. OBERSTAR, Ms. WATERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FARR, Mr. OLVER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. WATSON, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. RUSH, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. STARK, and Mr. CAPUANO) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed.

The following comes from the website: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm

Where I did a search for HJ Resolution 20

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 20
To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 5, 2003
Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. LEE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. OWENS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. OBERSTAR, Ms. WATERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FARR, Mr. OLVER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. WATSON, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. RUSH, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. STARK, and Mr. CAPUANO) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed.

Here is the pdf version of Public Law 107-243:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107.pdf

In my opinion, HJR 20 is necessary because:
1) PL 107-243 does not specify any time limit on the President's sole authority to use military force in Iraq (which means that future invasions are "legitimate"), and
2) PL 107-243 trampled on the very idea of democracy and brought us one step closer to a monarchy (which we actively fled 250 years ago). HJR 20 would, albeit far too late, acknowledge that we cannot allow any President to have the final say over military action in Iraq, and
3) PL 107-243 sets a dangerous precedent for similar bills to be passed in the future, therefore we should remove it from our law NOW before it is used as a basis for invading other countries.

3-31-03
HJR 20 will not pass. There are too many conservatives and too many liberals that make money off war. Besides, the war has already been authorized. The real conflict with this war is ending it. The 'Money Masters', or the banks and financial institutions around the world make too much money on wars. They do not want them to end. They want them to drag on and on and on. The more conservatives and liberals fight over the war, the longer it takes, the more it costs us.

America is 'just' in going after evil in the world. There is a new fresh attitude in the air, conservative driven for sure, hopefully liberals will catch on. Lets lead the world into peace, instead of babysitting evil. Just like Hitler, it is going to take more then just a time out in the corner, its going to take taking him out period.

The real war is with the 'Money Masters' who purposefully pit conservatives and liberals against each other to help sustain wars. The history of war and money is absolutely choking with evidence of this fact. The federal Reserve Bank, for example, is a privately owned bank, that is linked to banks around the world, including France, who manipulate economies as they see fit. How much is this war going to cost? Who is lending us the money? Find out!

You want to start a real war, one that will end all wars, repeal the power granted to the Federal Reserve Bank to act as the 'Bank of America'.

In the mean time we have to fight back, because the threat is real. To do otherwise would be foolish. America is the only government economy that has a chance of making a difference. the further we slip into socialism, the less chance we have of doing anything.

Research the 'Money Masters'

Thank you Helen for providing 'reasons' for the resolution.
I agree that there need to be some checks on the unbounded power of the president and vice president and this is one of many steps toward that end.

David has interesting observations which I appreciate - although the whole question of it being a 'just' war is simply a matter of opinion. The real question -which we don't know the answers to and can only speculate, is what will be the true cost of the war? I pray that the outcome is peace and stability in the Middle east and around the world, but I'm afraid that the absolute opposite will be true. Look at the headlines! Although most people in ME countries are against Saddam Hussein, the US is seen as an unwelcome invader (again) and they want us to lose.

Is that the path to peace and prosperity?

I would like to know how this war could end, I agree that it's not realistic that the US would just stop and pull out. If someone could help explain how to end this war sooner, I'd love to know.

Meanwhile, I support separation of Church, state and CORPORATION in America - the root of so many problems.

Trying to stop this war is like a group of protesters trying to stop a moving train by stepping in front of it. Just makes a mess. But....those protesters could move down the track a ways and tear up the track.

This is what must be done. We must all vote! Even those who feel apathetic, the young voters and minorities must wake up. We can no longer allow the country to be run by a small but extreme, powerful and well-organized few from the right.

If you haven't heard of Howard Dean yet, I urge you to check him out. Read his position on the issues and his speeches. Tell your friends. Get the word out. Electing a "Bush Lite" isn't going change anything.....

http://www.deanforamerica.com

By the time we get a chance to "Vote" it will be too late for numerous American and British serviceman and Iraqi civilians who will died needlessly in this unjust invasion.

Even if only symbolic this is important. The law it repeals was passed in part on the basis of lies and deceit spread by Administration personnel, including the lie about Uranium and Niger, and what so far seems to be the lie about the Aluminum tubes. The President knew about these before he went to war, and he did it anyway.

Isn't this an old resolution? Wasn't this already debated 2 weeks ago?

Appreciate the varied and informative posts which have help clarify the purpose of HJR 20 for me.

The March 27 post on www.johnfricker.com is erroneous in a few ways: The letter itself seems to have originated soon after Feb 5 when the bill was introduced, not by Rep Kucinich (D-OH), but by Reps DeFazio (D-OR) and Paul (R-TX). Kucinich was one of the original 29 co-sponsors on Feb 5. 8 more Reps signed on as co-sponsors between Feb 5 and March 19, the day before the war was launched, for a total of 37 co-sponsors. On March 20, DeFazio gave a speech stating that now is not the time to debate presidential war powers -- see http://defazio.house.gov/032003DEStatement.shtml. I believe it's safe to say that action on HJ20 is pretty much dead, and there are more effective ways to address this issue that writing Hastert in support of HJ20.

I would like to see this resolution passed. Of course it won't end the conflict in Iraq, but it can prevent further unauthorized wars. If our President continued to use unauthorized force after the passing of this resolution, then he would need to be removed from office.

The President is, by Constitution, a figurehead. He does not need to weilding as much power as he currently has. Let us not forget the reason we formed this country in the first place was to avoid any ONE person having too much power over a large group of people.