I ask this simple question. Reagan bombed Libya, a sovereign nation, without declaring war.
Was this constitutional?
Was it beneficial?
What of strikes against the sovereign nation of Iran and its ability to make weapons that can cross our borders in ways that the Border patrol has no effect, and need not have operators with in our shores. Strikes against weapons that could kill millions just seconds after we are even aware they are coming.
Would that be Constitutional?
Would that be beneficial?
The President as CIC is charged to respond to sudden attacks. The answer is yes.
Was it beneficial?
You might wish to ask the relatives of Peter Kilburn that one. You might also wish to ask the surviving family members of Pan Am flight 103 to see if it was beneficial to them and those they lost.
Are we still at war with like minded terrorists today? Was there a lasting benefit to anyone?
What of strikes against the sovereign nation of Iran and its ability to make weapons that can cross our borders in ways that the Border patrol has no effect, and need not have operators with in our shores. Strikes against weapons that could kill millions just seconds after we are even aware they are coming.
Iran will strike Israel first. So Israel will do the pre-empting on that one. Just like they did in Iraq when Saddam was attempting to build nukes. Israeli warplanes took out his sites.
Would that (for the US to strike Iran first) be Constitutional?
I doubt it without a declaration of war, but I might find a way to forgive it under the circumstance so long as it defeats them with a clear and precise victory. :)
Btw, I intended to address this from you earlier so I will now. There are no men or women in public service better than the rest of us. Allow me refresh your memory:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
Bottomline, no public official elected or appointed is any better than the rest of us. Under the Constitution, they serve we the people at our discretion and are our equals.