To: exodus
Frankly, I am as disappointed as you are that our Reps don't give a big rat's a*s about our troops enough to respect them with a declaration fo war. That's because there are too many PC Democrats in there - if I had my way, they'd all be chucked into a prison until the ending of hostilities.
On the other hand, saying there is no war when there is, in fact, war, is stupid. It's also highly offensive to those who are under attack.
# 297 by muawiyah
===============
It has nothing to do with "respecting the troops," muawiyah.
Sending troops into a foreign nation,
without a Declaration of War,
is a so-called "police action."
It is not a war.
Also, sending troops into a foreign nation is itself an "Act of War."
An Act of War without Congressional sanction is illegal.
All of these things are wars to the participants - and try as you might, you can't take that away from them. War is war is war.
There have been a number of histories posted in FR over the years regarding the question of "declaration of war". One of them cited several hundred specific instances of war where Congress did not issue any sort of declaration, or even enabling legislation. In fact, at lest one early administrative procedure, "The Whiskey Rebellion" actually had George Washington doing his thing as Commander in Chief, not just President.
Somethng to think about there - the President is the Commander in Chief - 24/7. As such he has powers to take actions with or without Congressional approval. We must presume that his actions are, to a degree, Constitutional because, after all, being President, and Commander in Chief, is a Constitutional office.
Presumably the President has the power, independent of any Congressional judgment in the matter, to repel assault against the United States. About the only thing he can't do is call up the militia - that's for Congress to do, and they are not required to first pass a declaration of war - they can just "do it". Now what do you imagine Congress would do with a militia?