Posted on 06/21/2025 5:52:16 PM PDT by RandFan
Congress continues to slide their responsibilities to the Administrative State.
Buncha loosers they are.
Might as well move to Canaduh!
Immediately after that, one of the old officers said something like .. "You know, this is likely to get us all killed and plunge the entire world into war.", to which that young Marine lifted his glass and toasted ... "Gentlemen, if we all get killed I hope the whole world does go to war!"
An excellent movie by the great American director John Milius.
It’s unconstitutional
H.J.Res.542 - Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Public Law 93-148
JOINT RESOLUTION
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsi bilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
See the link above for the rest of the text.
To your post...
You and others here seem to have concocted an intermediate state between war and peace, that does not exist in this or any other constitutional text
Congress, in Section 2 of their joint resolution defines their authority under the Constitution to define these lesser states of hostilities for the purposes of this act. Section 4 defines these lesser states of hostilities.
Why is it so impossible to follow the Constitution and get an authorization via a declaration of war?
This resolution defines the reporting requirements of the Commander-In-Chief to inform Congress in situations short of declared war.
Regarding today's actions:
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
The United States is already involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. Our Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea were providing anti-missile defense of Israel when Iran was sending barrages of ballistic missiles into Israeli cities for at least the past week.
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat
Our Navy is mostly in international waters, but the seas are narrow and we may have ships in Israel's coastal territory. Additional destroyers and carrier groups have been sent to the region.
in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation
There were no American forces in Iran, until this sortie entered Iranian airspace to conduct this mission, and they have since withdrawn from Iran.
-PJ
Sorry but after the Korean war:
1. Expansion of Presidential War Powers:
Truman’s Decision to Intervene: President Truman’s decision to commit troops to the Korean War without a formal declaration of war from Congress was a pivotal moment. While he cited his authority as Commander-in-Chief, this action sparked debate about the extent of presidential power to initiate military action without explicit congressional authorization.
Shifting Interpretation of Article II, Section 2: The Korean War solidified an interpretation of Article II, Section 2 (Commander-in-Chief Clause) suggesting the president can initiate hostilities without direct congressional consultation. Historically, this clause was primarily understood as granting the President authority over the military once war was declared by Congress.
Precedent for Executive Unilateralism: The conflict set a precedent for presidents to use substantial military force without explicit congressional authorization, which some argue has legitimized unilateral executive action in subsequent conflicts.
The Libertarian Party is the party of child molestation anyways.
Which was my original point: war declarations have become meaningless in this day and age. Congress doesn’t even have to “fund a war” anymore. With a $1T annual defense budget, the President can pretty much do as he pleases with the military.
No, the President cannot “do as he pleases with the military.” Congress can terminate funding for a particular war or prohibit certain military spending and actions and the courts will enforce that unless the President’s core power as commander in chief is transgressed. Read the Supreme Court cases from the Vietnam era and you will see my point.
We would go Bessel with joy if you would STFU!!
2. The best example in my lifetime of your scenario was the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980. Congress explicitly forbade the U.S. government from supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, and withdrew any and all funding for them. The Reagan administration worked around it by funding them through arms sales to Iran. Congress just sat there and basically did nothing but hold televised hearings. This is a problem when the executive branch has its own power to prosecute federal crimes.
I agree 100%. Massie needs to be removed!!
Go somewhere else!
This should be the beginning of your end.
1) The post 9/11 AUMF to use force against terrorism is still in effect. Iran is the worlds largest committer of terrorism and sponsor of terrorist acts;
2) the only legal power explicitly granted to a President by a Declaration of War in the Constitution is the ability prosecute for giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy: only with a DOW or AUMF can formal charges of treason be brought. The war power the Founders were far more afraid of than military action based on English history were politically motivated charges of treason.
3) the Congressional power far more restrictive of military action by any President is the power of appropriation. If the Congress believes the threat level justifies $1 trillion/yr in military spending, it's funding a big war chest the President can use at any time as CINC. That's not a flaw: that's a feature of the Constitution's design and was understood to be such in 1789.
The hyper-restrictive interpretation of the DOW promulgated by Massie, libertardians, and many here is a product of leftist anti-war, anti-American babbling in the 1960s. It would put the US in the position of the Dutch army at Blenheim: unable to act without constant authorizations from the Netherland's cities who provided the militia, or like Athens, where the conduct of military affairs was constantly up for a vote in the assembly.
Your view of the issue is extreme and is not credible when assessed against pertinent Supreme Court cases.
I’m more interested in a concurring or dissenting opinion from someone like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas on the subject.
The AUMF Is too broad and does not override the constitution and DoW powers
President is allowed to take limited actions if there is an imminent threat of INVASION and such (like to repel one)
Iran is not a threat to the US. Has never attacked or invaded its shores as per what is generally meant and how the framers would have seen it in the 1770s
Lets be real for a moment your clever arguments do not stack up and are not consistent with what your founding fathers intended
Thew men in black robes are of little consequence in fact you should do well to ignore them most of the time (isn’t that what Freepers want with this Roberts court anyway on many other issues ?)
As with most complex and contentious subjects, it is better to begin by learning the facts and be as dispassionate as if studying the table of elements in chemistry. Two Congressional Research Service monographs offer a good place to start: “Congressional Authority to Limit Military Operations” (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41989), and The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42699).
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.