Replies

You actually believe the president can use miltary force to "advance our interests"?

Then the Constitution and the very concept of limitations on government power mean nothing.

I ,for one, don't want all these rogue warrior types roaming the world killing people "to advance our interests";neither do I want any president ordering up a war to boost poll numbers.

If Congress hasn't declared a war ,or it is not in response to an attack upon the US,then we ought to stay out of the fight.

You actually believe the president can use miltary force to "advance our interests"? Then the Constitution and the very concept of limitations on government power mean nothing.

I believe the point is that the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional.

The question of whether a president can use military force without a DoW or not should only be answered based on what's in the Constitution.

My friend, I'm not even sure how to answer you. One of the Presidents "enumerated powers" is to command the military. Projecting power is something that is solely in his domain. Now you may be a libertarian (an I'm pretty libertarian in most things too) but your understanding of the use of military power is pretty shallow. When the President moves the 5th fleet off the coast of Lybia does that mean he needs an act of war?

When he sends special forces into a country to rescue Americans does he need an act of war? If he declares a blockade around Cuba to prevent nuclear weapons from being placed there does he need an act of war? Those are examples of using our military power to forward our interests. There are many things the military can do aside from killing "innocent" people.

The President projects military force as he thinks is in our best interests. That IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Now at some point he is waging war and that requires a Declaration of war. The question is where does that start.