Replies

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to "authorize war powers." It authorizes Congress AND ONLY CONGRESS to declare war.

My congressman, conservative Republican John Culberson, said at one of his town hall meetings that he wanted to declare war after 9/11, but that the Bush administration did not want to do so because that would trigger things which it did not want -- like closing the border.

If it's worth going to war over, it's important for Congress to declare war -- clearly and unequivocally -- not these vague "authorizations" that every argues over what they mean. And when we're at war, we are at war.

My congressman, conservative Republican John Culberson, said at one of his town hall meetings that he wanted to declare war after 9/11, but that the Bush administration did not want to do so because that would trigger things which it did not want -- like closing the border.

This is key. Why is the border open, and why are Muslims swarming into the US like never before? IMO, these are because of W's globalist pretensions.

What's more, I believe that our slack national security (which RP would like to correct, btw) indicates that terrorism is not a significant threat.

Some have argued that we have not lost liberties. The fact is that through various executive orders since Reagan, bolstered by the Patriot Act which can be used to authorize surveillance and suspend due process against citizens, we have indeed lost liberty. We are dependent only on the gentle graces of our Chief Executive to not run the US as a dictator.

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to "authorize war powers." It authorizes Congress AND ONLY CONGRESS to declare war.

Same thing with different words. You're caught up in semantics.

If you were right, the War Powers Act would be declared unconstitutional. Has it been? Why not? Let me know when it has.

I'm unaware of the Constitutional provision that means declaring war necessarily "triggers" "closing the border". How does that work exactly? Even if the President - the Commander-in-Chief - didn't want to, there'd be people going "Sorry - you declared war. That triggers it. We gotta close it." Huh?

Seems to me that travel across the U.S. border occurred during other declared wars. I've never heard of "closing the borders" being "triggered". Maybe your Congressman is wrong. Or maybe you're mischaracterizing the idea he conveyed (or maybe he mischaracterized it).

If it's worth going to war over, it's important for Congress to declare war -- clearly and unequivocally -- not these vague "authorizations" that every argues over what they mean.

Maybe there would be less argument over what a war powers authorization meant if people like you didn't make factually incorrect claims about them, like that they were somehow unconstitutional.

And when we're at war, we are at war.

Good point! And clearly, we are at war now. So you see, the fact that the magic word "declaration" was not placed in the authorizing document, really means very little to the question of whether we are at war.

And you still haven't explained which law the Iraq war is against (to make it "illegal"). Remember, that was Paul's claim that you're trying to defend, not very successful. Seriously, if it's so "illegal" it should be pretty darn easy to just tell me the law it violates. Why can't you?