[xzins]

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to be attacked before the President can use force

Of course there is. The Constitution specifically gives the power of declaring both all-out war AND limited offensive hostilities to the Congress.

The only power given to the president is as CINC of the armed forces AND the Constitution limits the exercise of this power to those times when the armed forces are "called" to be used.

Art 2, Sect 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

We can pretend that the modern evolution of the power of the presidency with the military means what it means today, but then we can also pretend the liberals are right about the 2d amendment, about abortion, and about the commerce clause.

The president DIRECTS THE military in conflict WHEN it has been given a mission by the Congress.

[politicalmerc]

Well Justice, I'm glad you cleared that matter up. I'll repeat, there is nothing that prevents the President from using the STANDING military (which didn't exist at the time of the Constitution) for most anything he wants; except for funding by Congress as a check and balance.

This is what I don't like here. If this was a Republican President we would all be on the other side of this. Many here are constitutional "experts" when it applies to the Democrats. If Reagan were in office they would be all for us attacking Libya.

Give it a break. The President has the power to do what he is doing.