Posted on 06/24/2011 2:29:09 PM PDT by dead
and the first NOT to comply with it
“well i am not sure it could be proven in court - and they are the ONLY one that could decide it”
No, we (that is, “the people”), and ultimately only we, could decide it, as we retain sovereignty.
But I digress. Yes, in the current political climate, the courts would have say-so.
i accept your humble and gracious surrender
unless you think the constitution has some magic words required in a surrender
(and yes, i still suck)
One of the reasons why the U.S. Constitution is so clear about Congress having the authorization on its own to declare war is that conditions under a truly constitutional government would require it. What I mean by this is that the U.S. Constitution doesn't simply authorize Congress to declare war and thereby allow the President to oversee a military campaign at the snap of a finger. The Congressional power to declare war is tied to a government structure in which the nation has few, if any, standing military forces at the ready -- which means the war declaration authorizes the President of the United States to constitute a "Federal army" by calling upon state militias to serve in a military force that would be under the command of the President rather than a state militia leader.
That all went out the window when the whole idea of a state militia disappeared after the Civil War -- and even more so after World War II. A large standing Federal military became a part of our nation's fabric in recent decades. This meant that a "war declaration" was basically pointless, because there's no need to give the President authority to call up a Federal military force when he's already got one at his disposal -- complete with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the Pentagon, etc. The borders of the U.S. aren't even relevant in this context anymore, as this permanent Federal military force is in countries all over the globe.
If wee really wanted to re-establish a truly constitutional government in this country, one of the first things we'd have to do is dismantle the Department of Defense almost in its entirety.
. . . we dropped more ordnance in Vietnam than in both WWII theaters and Vietnamese deaths were in the millions. To you that may be “just pick[ing] sides in the internal affairs of foreign countries,” but to me that’s pretty much a full scale war.
None of that means anything. The U.S. government (i.e., Robert McNamara, Lyndon Johnson, etc.) knew all the way back in the mid-1960s that there was no "victory" to be had in Vietnam, so really that whole debacle was nothing more than a waste of billions of dollars and millions of lives.
Each question was separate from the other. Choose means to choose the answer for each one. So, it is not a Logical Fallacy of any sort.
And you assumed wrong. My delay in replying was because I went out to dinner.
You still need to answer the questions.
i answered in post 72
“MILITARY FORCE” is not mopping floors
you were much more humble while eating dinner
There is very little difference between, for example, the 1941 Declaration of War against Japan and the 1991 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.
| JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same. Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of 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 Imperial Government of Japan 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 Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.[1] |
Whereas the Government of Iraq without provocation invaded and occupied the territory of Kuwait on August 2, 1990; Whereas both the House of Representatives (in H.J.Res. 658 of the 101st Congress) and the Senate (in S.Con.Res. 147 of the 101st Congress) have condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and declared their support for international action to reverse Iraq's aggression; Whereas, Iraq's conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to world peace; Whereas the international community has demanded that Iraq withdraw unconditionally and immediately from Kuwait and that Kuwait's independence and legitimate government be restored; Whereas the United Nations Security Council repeatedly affirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in response to the armed attack by Iraq against Kuwait in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; Whereas, in the absence of full compliance by Iraq with its resolutions, the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 678 has authorized member states of the United Nations to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; and Whereas Iraq has persisted in its illegal occupation of, and brutal aggression against Kuwait: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, |
That’s a facile but barren argument, though the immensity and omnipresence of our military is a strain on the constitution’s war powers description. Notably the present contretemps is at heart a result of our NATO entanglement (and exceptional bungling by the president).
But it would be as valid to say the constant sessions of congress is blocking ‘constitutional’ war power... The founders explicitly stated at the convention they were giving the president freedom to act on his own because congress would often be away.
President Washington did an amazing job of defining the presidency under the Constitution- and he commanded the war powers both on his own and under congress.
His decision that the president is free to act subject to congress’s approval or disapproval is the only authoritative definition of the constitution’s war power.
The constitutional problem is that we elect men so far beneath him to the position he held.
That’s not the question.
Does the Constitution give to Congress the power to authorize military force?
military force is not mopping floors
this is getting paultard
In this case, it's the Constitution that contains those words requiring precise meaning because it's our contract with the federal government.
If "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" ≡ "Declaration of War", then why has Congress not used the words "Declaration of War" since 1941?
That is an important question that requires an answer. It is at the crux of the debate.
Your refusal to answer questions paints a vivid picture of your debate failure. You might want to put some effort into exploring this question and its real answer. (Hint: The answer is really quite simple and if you spend a little time re-examining the equation, you'll see it clearly.)
BTW, "military force ≠ mopping floors" is irrelevant to the answer.
He’s my Congressman and I absolutely love him!
A true blue Conservative!
And that might be important to your misinterpretation of my post, but because I was using “crux” to mean “the main or central feature”, it isn’t relevant to my post.
“because I was using ‘crux’ to mean ‘the main or central feature’”
I know what crux means, thanks. What you are getting at by defining it, on the other hand, is beyond me.
There's your problem, Scott.
Only Congress can declare a war. So, the President has violated the Constitution.
Under the War Powers Act, the President can unilaterally begin military hostilities only against an entity that has threatened the USA. Libya did no such thing.The President has violated the law.
Scott, you have the power of the pourse strings--or you can impeach the President.
Pick one.
Well then, we’re even, because I don’t understand your point in questioning the crux of a debate between sloop and me. Sloop was being obtuse, making wild claims, refusing to back them up or even explain them, and refusing to answer legitimate questions. His main point seemed to be that there is no difference between a Declaration of War and an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
You come into that, and apparently without reading the entire debate between the two of us, begin critiquing one statement. You should at least make your replies relevant to the debate.
In any event, feel free to continue, talking to yourself.
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.