Posted on 06/24/2011 2:29:09 PM PDT by dead
there is no specific language required in the constitution for a declaration
bush had one
Proof please. Link to it so we can read it.
the constitution?
The Constitution is unclear on exactly how to stop an action that violates the Constitutional.
Bush had an agreement from Congress to engage in hostilities, which is pretty close to a Declaration of War and therefore passes muster. I guess.
Congress supported other military actions, such as Korea and Vietnam, which likewise pass muster. I think.
But Obummer has no approval for anything in Libya. Short of impeachment (please? pretty please?) the Constitution provides no mechanism for saying STOP short of cutting off funding. Saying STOP to a presidential military adventure was the intention of the War Powers Act but ... obviously ... there are some teeth missing here.
Impeaching the usurper would be the best course of action. Please?
It is a very specific and very detailed statement, and we have not declared a State of War since World War II.
Here is the Declaration of War against Germany from December 11, 1941:
Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
While I have supported past efforts to defund the military conflict in Libya, I could not vote in support of a bill that only defunds some of the military effort while endorsing others.
He will support a bill defunding the war, but only if it fully defunds the war. This resolution did not do that. It was designed to control how the war was prosecuted, which is not the job of congress.
Is this not "a point" in your mind?
so does mark levin
Show me the resolution from Congress that we were in a State of War.
I don’t give a crap who disagrees. The standards are all there for you to see.
There must be a formal declaration that the United States is in a State of War with an enemy for it to be a formally declared War.
If you don’t understand that basic premise, you will never be moved from your wrong understanding of the Constitution.
Thanks for that effort to show the facts.
i take it you can’t show me using the constitution what phrase was omitted from bush’s declaration of war
No, you’re claiming that Congress gave Bush a Declaration of War. That is incorrect.
If you’re sure it is correct, then please provide proof of the Declaration of War. When was it passed and what is the text of it? A link will be sufficient.
But you won’t find one. Congress gave Bush an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which is not a Declaration of War as required by the Constitution. The last congressional Declaration of War was for WWII in 1941.
But first, the President cannot declare war, so it cannot be "Bush's declaration of war".
Article I, Section 8 describes the powers of Congress. Line 11 states:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
Only Congress can declare war.
prove that - it can't be done
Ron Paul? Constitutional Scholar?
The reality is that they have abdicated the constitutionally specified power to declare war on other nations for political reasons. Generally, they are too scared to take a stand, and would rather let the president make the decision. Then they are free to cheer or snipe as the popularity of the war waxes and wanes.
Although it is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, common sense would dictate that a declaration of war would, at a minimum, somewhere contain the phrase "declaration of war" within it.
"Authorization of force" is typical weasly lawyer phrase, produced by the hundreds of typically weasly lawyers who have come to infest our congress.
It is indeed wise for congress to avoid interfering in the prosecution of hostilities by the CIC.
However he goes too far- how can congress declare “limited war” at all under his rationale?
Defining permissable and impermissable missions is obviously neccesary then.
But it was intended for the President to command the military without interference from congress as long as he was conducting lawful missions.
I give him a C-... being in congress he’s got a great “grade curve’ LOL!
I think there is a lot of leeway in allowing use of military force without a formal Declaration of War, as even our founders used force in at least three actions before the first true War.
But I do think that since the 50s the cowardice of Congress has led us to this point.
I wish there had been a Declaration of War against Iraq, we certainly had the Casus Belli all lined up for it.
But we didn’t, and it will go down as another military action without a Declaration of War.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.