Posted on 11/20/2001 6:05:04 PM PST by Texasforever
I think that is exactly right and the fact is that that is what Jefferson and Congress thought also. The point of this post was to try to clear up the argument that Congress "declared war" on the Barbary Pirates and that this congress should follow that precedent otherwise Bush is not exercising his war powers as CIC in a time of war unconstitutionally. The fact seems to be that he AND congress are following the exact model that Jefferson and his congress used.
First of all it is difficult to imagine Thomas Jefferson ignoring the constitution. That was not the point. The point is that there are many assertions that congress formally declared war on the Barbary Pirates. That does not appear to be the case.
It is an exceptionally clear piece of writing. I have been avoiding use of the term --war--, but now I see there is no reason to continue doing so.
Looks like the Bush team knows history a lot better than their detractors. After all, that was GWB's area of study as an undergrad, lol...
-penny
Ahh, good point.
I think Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt also know this history. It explains why when their respective Mullahs, declared Jihad against us for Afghanistan, the governments immediately and publicly made statements that they did not agree with the Jihad/war declaration.
Well not quite, they still have to authorise and appropriate the necessary funds, if any are required beyond those already appropriated and authorised that is. Congress has done so in this case. We ARE at war.
As I read what seems to be the prevalent interpretation, if we are attacked we are at war. It's only if some nations acts against us in a non violent manner that none the less is a cause belli, a blockade perhaps, that Congress needs to Declare War.
Interesting how we've all been brainwashed since the Korean War at least into thinking we could not be at war unless Congress declared us to be. Kinda changes the notion that Treason is only a crime if Congress has declared war, now doesn't it? Hanoi Jane, et. al., are you reading this?
Very impressive researching!
Thus, would it not be appropriate for the president to ask Congress to declare that a state of war has existed between the United States and Al Qaeda since September 11, similar to Roosevelt?
The Barbary Pirate war has come to light as the "gold standard" for how we handle an enemy without borders and Bush has failed to use that precedent to justify his actions. That however does not appear to be the case. He has used exactly that precedent. Bush AND congress appear to be on firm historical constitutional grounds so far.
It's not so much a question of ignoring the Constitution, as understanding what it means, how it was understood by those who wrote and ratified it. In this case the notion that Congress must declare War or there is no legal state of war existing seems to be a Vietnam or maybe post Korea, invention. Bush-I got Congressional authorization for the use of force, as did Bush-II, as did Jefferson. The same Jefferson who wrote:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
No, Tripoli, now Libya, was extorting protection money to keep the pirates at bay. Tripoli declared war on us when we refused. There was a nation, much like Afghanistan declared war on us, in that mix.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.