This is what a Congressional Declaration of War sounds like:
The advantage of securing a Congressional Declaration of War, is that if a liberal votes for a Declaration of War as per the Constitution, he can't very well go back after the fact and wail, "IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!" Hey, buddy -- you said "WAR" and you voted for it, capische?
The whole idea is to get Congress to make an up-or-down commitment on War, and not allow a bunchy of weaselly wiggle-room. Rand Paul (who, as a simple matter of fact, is more hawkish on Afghanistan and on military tribunals for Terror suspects than is dear old dad Ron Paul) is not advocating an outlandish position here, IMHO.
“The advantage of securing a Congressional Declaration of War, is that if a liberal votes for a Declaration of War as per the Constitution, he can’t very well go back after the fact and wail, ‘IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!!’ Hey, buddy — you said ‘WAR’ and you voted for it, capische?”
We still should be able to do so. First of all, everyone knows what the non-declaration declerations mean. Secondly, whatever it is they were voting on, they knew, we knew, and Bush knew were meant to give Bush the green light. Nonetheless, libs will proceed to blame Bush for what happened, and the public will bite or not. Most often bite, since the president asked for it and he is the commander in chief.
**This is what a Congressional Declaration of War sounds like:**
Since the Constitution gives Congress NO FORM on what a “DECLARATION OF WAR” should Look Like, a “USE OF FORCE” resolution sounds pretty damn close to me.
is that in the constitution? where does it have the specific language that a declaration of war must contain?