No, I 'must' accept no such thing. Defining a word doesn't bestow authority.
You have again failed to provide historical documentation of the Founders beliefs, and disregard the fact that IF they truly believed the war power was ‘plenary’ the documentation concerning that (supposedly) unlimited power would be abundant. They really weren't shy about offering their opinions.
YOU asserted Congress possessed the unlimited capacity to declare war, so it is up to YOU to prove your assertion.
I've already provided evidence to the contrary.
-----
Please identify the “restrictive (specification) clauses of the Constitution.” that limit the power to declare war.
The clause concerning the declaration of war is proceeded by:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations ;
-----
There is nothing in the Constitution identifying, granting, or extending any kind of right to a Letter of Marque or Reprisal. If you think otherwise, then identify the clause.
Um....
1) I've posted Story's take on the subject. As you lack his credentials, I do believe I will take his opinion over yours.
2) If there was NOT a right to remedy (reprisal) it wouldn't BE in the Constitution. It would be impossible to petition for a something that you NEVER had a right to in the first place.
-----
In this Examination, you’ll find the following quote: “That instrument has only provided affirmatively, that, “The Congress shall have power to declare War;” the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress,...”
Hamilton discusses the fact a declaration of war is unnecessary if a foreign nation has already declared war on us...so what's your point?
BTW- Hamilton spent 3...count 'em THREE Federalist papers (#26, 27 & 28) discussing the authority of war.
The title of these papers?
The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
Which leads to a rather logical question:
If the Founders believed the authority to declare war by Congress was an unlimited and ‘plenary’ power, why bother spending so much time and effort discussing it?
LOL!
“The clause concerning the declaration of war is proceeded by:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”
This is completely irrelevent. My argument has been that congress has an unlimited power over the content and format, how it chooses, to declare war. The fact that this clause seems to limit the reasons why Congress may declare war is irrelvent as to HOW it declares war.
“1) I’ve posted Story’s take on the subject. As you lack his credentials, I do believe I will take his opinion over yours.”
Story’s take does not address whether this is a right or a priviledge.
“2) If there was NOT a right to remedy (reprisal) it wouldn’t BE in the Constitution. It would be impossible to petition for a something that you NEVER had a right to in the first place.”
Since most of the Constitution is concerned with the powers of the states and the various branches of the government, most of the Constitution doesn’t address ‘rights’. Individuals have ‘rights’. Branches have ‘powers’. BTW, you can ‘petition’ Congress for all sorts of things, not just rights.
“Hamilton discusses the fact a declaration of war is unnecessary if a foreign nation has already declared war on us...so what’s your point?”
The point is, according to Hamilton, “The Congress shall have power to declare War;” the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress,...”. “Peculiar and exclusive province of Congress.” means that it’s up to Congress. No other branch can tell Congress HOW to declare war. That’s a ‘plenary power’.
“If the Founders believed the authority to declare war by Congress was an unlimited and ‘plenary’ power, why bother spending so much time and effort discussing it?”
Because they were trying to explain to the people how the Constitution worked and what were the specific enumerated powers of the various parts of the government. They weren’t talking to themselves, they were talking to the people who had not the opportunity to participate in the deliberations. Hamilton spent a lot of ink describing how Congress had the power to declare war and the executive had the power to wage war and the differences of those two powers.
The point I’ve been trying to make that is that Congress has the power and the authority to declare war. That power, THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR, is unlimited. Other powers of Congress may be limited, but HOW Congress chooses to DECLARE WAR is NOT. If Congress wants to put the words “Declaration of War” at the top of the document, that is up to Congress. If Congress wants to put the words “Authorization of Force” at the top of the document, that too is up to Congress. From a Constitutional powers perspective, either is equally valid and Constitutional.
You have made the claim that Letters of Marquis and Reprisal are the appropriate way to respond to terrorism. Please explain why these Letters would be effective. The question is not whether these Letters are a step short of war. The question is not whether they are a Constitutional Act. The question is why do you think they would be effective?