Replies

It always saddens me when citizens of the United States rationalize that it's OK for their government to violate The Law (the Constitution). It's particularly depressing to read those of "Free Republic" doing the rationalizing.

"Congressman" Billybob notes that the Constitution gives Congress the power:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules on Capture on Land and Water;"

He then points out that there are no precise words in the Constitution for how to do each of those things.

That true. But common sense would ensist that there would be some mention of "war." I don't think it's unreasonable to have something like what was done in WWII:

"Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United states of America:

"Therefore be it "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United states and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby
authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a
successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United states."

Since Congress might want to grant the President the power to wage war in Iraq well in advance of the President's actually waging of the war, something like:

"Should the President determine that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein fail to meet its commitments under blah, blah, a state of war will exist with the U.S. government."

Another VERY IMPORTANT thing in ANY "declaration" of war would be that it would come BEFORE the President actually starts to wage the war. Otherwise, common sense dictates that Congress is merely ACKNOWLEGING that the war exists, rather than declaring it.

"While Congress did not use the same language in declaring war on the Barbary Pirates,"

First of all, Congress did NOT "declare war" on Tripoli (let alone the "Barbary Pirates")...in that the Congress did NOT first declare war, after which Jefferson waged that war.

The "war" on the "Barbary Pirates" was the first case of a President violating the Constitution, regarding the military. (Just like the Louisiana Purchase was the first example of a President violating the Constitution regarding federal purchase of land.)

The Bey (leader) of Tripoli declared war on the United States. The statist Alexander Hamilton then wrote that it could be ASSUMED that the U.S. was "at war" with the Bey of Tripoli...but, of course, Alexander Hamilton never much cared what the Constitution said, anyway.

Billybob continues, "There are two reasons for mentioning Congress' authority given to President Jefferson against the Barabary Pirates."

The main reason why it's good to mention that is because the "authority given" was given EX POST FACTO. And was therefore not in accordance with the Constitution. Once again, this was the first example of a President violating the Constitution, rather than first getting a Congressional declaration of "war."

Billybob continues, "On 19 September, 2002, I had an article published on UPI entitled, "Commentary: Are we at war?" That article lays out chapter and verse of why we are at war, NOW, and how the requirements of the Constitution have been fully met, NOW."

Well, why don't you post the entire article, "chapter and verse," and I'd be happy to show, by "chapter and verse," why it's a complete crock.

"The argument that "we are not at war" keeps rearing its ugly head on these threads."

Yes, Billybob, the TRUTH has a way of rearing its "ugly head."

I absolutely challenge anyone who says that a "war on terrorism" is legal under the Constitution to bet me whether ANY president will EVER declare the war to be over. I absolutely guarantee that NO President and NO Congress will EVER declare that we are no longer at war with terrorism.

And once again, the Founding Fathers would NEVER be so stupid as to authorize a never-ending war...with an unnamed enemy!

Oh, I forgot to include this website:

http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm

From the website:

"If only the Bey of Tripoli had declared war, Dale was to blockade Tripoli's port. If any other of the Barbary states had declared war, then Dale was to deploy his troops as he saw fit in order to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence-by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them."(19) This order by President Jefferson authorized actions that clearly were beyond the line of "defensive" actions authorized by the Constitution."

Jefferson violated the Constitution regarding the Bey of Tripoli (aka, the "Barbary Pirates"). So use of the history of the "Barbary Pirates" IS useful...in showing that G.W. Bush is currently violating the Constitution.

No surprise there, since the Constitution was also violated in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc. ad nauseum.

Please, please, please, do your homework before you post on this subject again.
First, my UPI article "Are we at war?" WAS posted on FR and had a substantial discussion. Apparently you missed it. You should find it and read it. It quotes and compares seven different declarations of war in US history.
The word "war" does not have to be used. When Congress authorizes unlimited use of the "United States military" by the President, what do you think they are to be used for? Our military exists for the purpose of fighting and winning WAR. As Lt. Lionel Mandrake said to Col. Bat Guano in Dr. Strangelove, "Shoot the lock off with your gun. That's what the bullets are for, you twit."
Congress DID declare war on the Barbary Pirates. I quote that declaration in my UPI article, and that thread also contains links to the complete text of that and other declarations of war. READ THAT DECLARATION. Then you will know that it exists.
You seem to think that a declaration of war is defective if the war has already begun. Therefore you reject the declaration of war against the Barbary Pirates. Are you aware that Germany declared war on the US before the US declared war on Germany? Did that make our declaration somehow invalid? That's absurd.
The phrase "ex post facto" appears twice in the Constitution. It has to do with the passage of criminal laws by Congress or by state legislatures. It has diddly-squat to do with any declaration of war. Apparently you don't know what the phrase means.
And in your repeated assertion that "the Framers would never approve a declaration of war" that did not name a nation as the enemy (Barbary Pirates, then -- Terrorists, now) you totally ignored that some of the Framers were ALIVE AND WELL and serving in Congress and VOTED FOR the Barbary Pirate declaration. I'd say the fact that Framers voted for that declaration is a pretty good indication that they approved it, and that your assertion is flat-out false.
As for your attack on "unlimited war," Congress has NEVER included in any declaration of war the date on which the war will end. That assertion by you is so absurd that it almost defies verbal comment. Do you think that Congress consists of 535 Nostradamuses?
Every declared war has ended with Congress declaring the end of it. Contrary to what you say, a President has no more independent power to declare the end of a war than he has to declare the beginning of one.
READ THE DOCUMENTS. READ THE HISTORIES. You will benefit yourself, and you will quit giving false information to FReepers.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column, "Three Anti-Endorsements." Not yet up on FR, or UPI.

Click for "to Restore Trust in America." As the politician formerly known as Al Gore said, "Buy my book."