The problem with (b) is that it's unconstitutional.
Article I / Section 8 / Clause 11
Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
When war is duly declared, it is not merely a war between this and the adverse government in their political characters. Every man is, in judgment of law, a party to the acts of his own government, and a war between the governments of two nations, is a war between all the individuals of the one, and all the individuals of which the other nation is composed. Government is the representative of the will of all the people, and acts for the whole society. This is the theory in all governments, and the best writers on the law of nations concur in the doctrine, that when the sovereign of a state declares war against another sovereign, it implies that the whole nation declares war, and that all the subjects of the one, are enemies to all the subjects of the other. Very important consequences concerning the obligations of subjects, are deducible from this principle.
James Kent, Commentaries
-----
FYI – Law of Nations Article I / Section 8 / Clause 10
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature's God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all.
James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law
-----
Nowhere is there an authority to declare war on an ideology, no matter how abhorrent we consider that ideology to be.
If we expect the nations of the world to respect our sovereignty, we need to respect theirs.
Nice try, but not at all the point.
1st - America at all times, has not only a right but a responsibility to defend its interest here or anywhere else in the world.
2nd - The constitution gives congress the power to “declare war” against another sovereign nation. But it does NOT require congress to “declare war” against a nation before introducing troops into action.
3rd - The constitution also give sole authority to command troops into battle to the Commander-in-Chief. There’s a simple reason for this. The Commander-in-Chief’s FIRST duty of office is to protect and defend the nation he represents and its citizens.
4th - The War Powers Act of 1973 (passed via constitutional process) reaffirms the Presidents authority to order troops to battle without even gaining authorization from congress, anytime America has been attacked and America has been attacked on numerous occasions leading up to military response.
5th - Although the constitution does not require anything more than “advice and consent” of congress, which largely relates to over-sight and funding of a mission, Bush in fact did seek congressional authority to use force to “liberate” Iraq and received such authorization by broad margin, not once but on three separate occasions.
All of which means, what we are doing in Iraq is indeed “constitutional” as all constitutional laws were followed in the process of going to war.
Now, on the basis of your disinformation, every military action since WWII was “unconstitutional”, since congress did not “declare war” in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Bosnia or anywhere else since WWII.
Last, as we “liberated” Iraq, and did not “invade and conquer” Iraq, we are not “at war” with the Iraqi people (nation). Therefore, a “declaration of war” against that nation would have been inappropriate. We deposed a brutal dictator that the Iraqi people had been asking us to depose for years.
You people who want to act like you know what you’re talking about, then prove that you don’t, kill me.
You are ideologically blind and delusional.
And THAT’s what makes you and those like you, a danger to every American!
If a ideology expects us to respect its sovereignty (i.e. Dictionary.com: 4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.), shouldn't it also respect our sovereignty as a nation? And if a ideology goes to war against us (9/11), don't we in turn have the right to go to war against it?
The Constitution gives us the right, no the responsibility, to defend ourselves. Nowhere does it explicitly state this right can only be exercised against a sovereign nation and not an ideology. I never met one of the founding Fathers, but I believe they'd find this concept laughable. After all, weren't many of our immigrants at the time, especially those who migrated here before America was formed, escaping an ideology of sorts? Do you think our founding Fathers would have hesitated declaring war against such an ideology should it have the ability to attack at that time?
The problem with (b) is that it's unconstitutional.
In 1945 I would agree with you in as much as I would pitch the whole Constitutional argument.
However (b) now goes a long way to insure something even more basic that what is contained in the Constitution, something that was the basis for every thing the founding fathers worked for including said documents.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These bastards want us dead and are seeking ways to do it more effectively everyday. As cute as it is to say we are at war with an ideology, the plain fact is there are nut cases with desires and intent that are real living breathing people, with the arms and legs, feet and hands to take action on their threats. They have done so.
Missiles and madmen have much less respect for sovereignty than we do. To be proactive or reactive, that is our choice. I fear limiting it to reactive will result in a radioactive situation one day. I choose life...
“Nowhere is there an authority to declare war on an ideology, no matter how abhorrent we consider that ideology to be.”
Another demonstrate of how Paul supports claim to be ‘constitutionalists’ but lack a basic understanding of the Constitution.
There are two problems with your line of argument. First of all the Constitutional argument. The Congressional Power to declare war is a plenary power, one without limit. Congress can declare war in any way it wishes and against any one it wishes. Consequently, the argument that the actions of Congress are unconstitutional collapse.
Second, the practical argument. By treaty, the US has agreed not to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Check out the Hague and Geneva Conventions of the early 1900.