To: exodus A "police action"? That's what they called the UN side of the sponsorship of the Korean War. I suppose there are folks who hold to that crappy old term - but they can do better.
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?
# 319 by muawiyah
===============
Don't hold the militia in contempt, muawiyah.
You are now a member of the Militia. So is Native American Female Vet. So am I, and every other citizen of this country, including hundreds of thousands of ex-policemen and veterans. Don't forget, the militia is what won the un-declared war between the Soviet Union and Afganistan.
Yes, you're right about the term "police action," it was a term used to justify our illegal participation in the un-declared war on Korea. They used that term to give legitimacy to an un-Constitutional act. If our government had tried to tell people that we were going to fight an un-declared war in a conflict that we had no business getting involved in, it wouldn't have been accepted. People would have said, "You can't do that without a Declaration of War!"
So they re-named the rose, and called it a "police action." Now that a President can do! He's the top law enforcement officer in the land, he doesn't have to ask Congress for approval before he performs a "police action." Never mind that Korea wasn't a part of the United States.
But now no one reads the Constitution, they're just TOLD what it says.
And the people believe, because after all, they're our leaders, you see.
You say, "All of these things are wars to the participants..."
That's true, in a limited way. If you're in a gun battle in the middle of the street with gangsters, you're in a war. They even used to call it "gang wars." However, it's still not a war in the national sense. To have a "real" war, the Constitution REQUIRES a Declaration of War from Congress. Declaring war is not a Presidential power. If the President doesn't have the Congressional sanction of an official Declaration of War, his "war" is illegal.
You're right when you say that the President doesn't need a Declaration of War to repell an invasion. Notice, however, that we have not been invaded.
I would add that no one understands the Constitution, even if they do a cursory read, they consider it a "living" document and allow their elected representatives (the gov't was once of the people, by the people and for the people) to trample all over it and its meaning.
Then, if We the People call attention to such abridgment of freedom, we are labeled traitors.
Now, about this non-invasion....."
We have been invaded, and in the worst way possible. They came and lived in our houses, attended our schools, and got drunk at our local hangouts. Then SOME of the invading force hijacked four jets and killed my neighbors and yours. The fire from the Twin Towers is still burning, and all of the people connected to 9/11 who are still in this country are still mailing out cute little love notes that just love us to death.
This bill is Politically correct to a fatal flaw, and Constitutionally INCORRECT to what could be a fatal flaw in the wrong hands. What do you suppose the Clintons would have done with a bill like this? (Not that they weren't bad enough already.)
Weren't you a wee bit surprised when they began using the RICO Law against anti-abortion demonstrators? My sister surely was after spending time in jail.
There are a lot of common sense clauses in this bill, but there are some that should make your hair stand on end. There are too many payoffs for our favorite critters, lawyers, insurance companies, and bankers.
For instance:
`Sec. 2712. Civil actions against the United States
`(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who is aggrieved by any willful violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of sections 106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may commence an action in United States District Court against the United States to recover money damages. In any such action, if a person who is aggrieved successfully establishes such a violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of the above specific provisions of title 50, the Court may assess as damages--
`(1) actual damages, but not less than $10,000, whichever amount is greater; and
`(2) litigation costs, reasonably incurred.
`(b) PROCEDURES- (1) Any action against the United States under this section may be commenced only after a claim is presented to the appropriate department or agency under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as set forth in title 28, United States Code.
`(2) Any action against the United States under this section shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within 2 years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within 6 months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented. The claim shall accrue on the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.'.
`(3) Any action under this section shall be tried to the court without a jury.
`(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the procedures set forth in section 106(f), 305(g), or 405(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall be the exclusive means by which materials governed by those sections may be reviewed.
`(5) An amount equal to any award against the United States under this section shall be reimbursed by the department or agency concerned to the fund described in section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, out of any appropriation, fund, or other account (excluding any part of such appropriation, fund, or account that is available for the enforcement of any Federal law) that is available for the operating expenses of the department or agency concerned.
`(c) ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE- If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the possible violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination.
`(d) EXCLUSIVE REMEDY- Any action against the United States under this subsection shall be the exclusive remedy against the United States for any claims within the purview of this section. `(e) STAY OF PROCEEDINGS- (1) Upon the motion of the United States, the court shall stay any action commenced under this section if the court determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case. Such a stay shall toll the limitations periods of paragraph (2) of subsection (b).
`(2) In this subsection, the terms `related criminal case' and `related investigation' mean an actual prosecution or investigation in progress at the time at which the request for the stay or any subsequent motion to lift the stay is made. In determining whether an investigation or a criminal case is related to an action commenced under this section, the court shall consider the degree of similarity between the parties, witnesses, facts, and circumstances involved in the 2 proceedings, without requiring that any one or more factors be identical.
`(3) In requesting a stay under paragraph (1), the Government may, in appropriate cases, submit evidence ex parte in order to avoid disclosing any matter that may adversely affect a related investigation or a related criminal case. If the Government makes such an ex parte submission, the plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to make a submission to the court, not ex parte, and the court may, in its discretion, request further information from either party.'.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 121 is amended to read as follows:
`2712. Civil action against the United States.'.
#########################################################
So, even if there is no reason for the government to investigate you, and even if you prove it, (which won't be easy. It never is to disprove a negative;) the government can claim that it would interfere with some other investigtion and you could quite easily be dead before your name is ever cleared, if indeed, it ever is. That's ONE.