[Sopater]

Here's Part II

[Sopater]

Ping

[Publius]

Part 2 of the Madison and war powers essays.

[Don W]

One minor quibble regarding the War of 1812: at best, the US came away with a draw. One of the stated goals was the annexation of Canada (Manifest Destiny). That did not happen, but the impressment of US citizens into the Royal Navy did stop after the conflict. The Brits also stopped with their insistence that the US was “merely a colony in revolt”.

[Jim W N]

That’s why Madison says the framers “vested the question of war in the legislature” (my emphasis). It is also why he goes on the say that “the doctrines lately advanced,” by which he means congressional authorization of limited military actions without declaring war, “strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the country in that department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it.”

Good examples of Madison's point, Feldman's viewpoint notwithstanding, are the Vietnam War and Bush's utterly misguided invasion of Iraq.

"Peace through strength" including a standing army seems like a good policy but doesn't necessarily exclude Congressional power to declare war. The threat of overwhelming force seems like a good deterrent against aggressors. However, without a constitutional amendment, we have a problem with Art. I, Sec. 8 Cl. 12.