[exodus]

To: P-Marlowe; kempo; Jolly Rodgers
To: kempo; Jolly Rodgers
I would stop the terrorist by inforcing existing laws.
Why does every new violation of law
require new laws to handle it?
We already have laws to handle terrorism.
It was done before, with no violation of our rights.
You do not understand, kempo.
We are not at war.
# 121 by exodus
===============
Of course not.
We have never known such a wonderful peace in our lifetime.
The view from under the sand is breathtaking, isn't it?
# 131 by P-Marlowe
===============
Such sarcasm, P-Marlowe.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 -
"(The Congress shall have Power To) To declare War,
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..."
Where is your Congressional Declaration of War, P-Marlowe?
# 173 by exodus
===============

To: exodus
I would think that this Bill is a defacto declaration of war.
Congress does not have to pass a formal declaration of war to "declare" war.
The manner in which Congress declares War is not set forth in the constitution.
They can declare War by simply by supporting the military action of the Commander in Chief.
How's the view from under the sand?
# 231 by P-Marlowe
===============

Actually, a Declaration of War must be formally made,
otherwise, there is no Declaration of War.
The very definition of "declare" is "to make known formally."

The procedure for declaring war may not be spelled out in the Constitution,
but Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, together with the 10th Amendment,
says that only Congress is allowed to declare war.
It is not a Presidential power.

"I would think that this Bill is a defacto declaration of war."
"This Bill," P-Marlowe?

Do you mean to say that until this Bill passed, we were NOT at war?
I remember media types, and President types, and Congress types,
all saying "We are at war with terrorists!"
from the day of the bombing.

If they are to be believed,
Congress doesn't have to formally declare war.
They also didn't have to formally declare war
on crime, or on drugs, or on Vietman, or on any Balkan state.

Amazing, isn't it?
You don't have to formally do anything
to violate the Constitution.

[muawiyah]

When the enemy is trying to kill you - that's a war even if Congress is of a contrary opinion. Actually, the enemy may be trying to kill Congress - still, you will notice, they are afraid of going through the formality of declaring war.

That's for two reasons - one has to do with who gets to pay insurance claims which arise out of acts of war; - one has to do with the identity of the enemy which seems to be rich people from/in Saudi Arabia.

Still, I've been "shot at" - twice now! It's a war. You guys want to quibble around the edges, go ahead. It's still a war no matter what you or Congress say.