To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;--Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution
Sorry but you can post all the unconstitutional passages you want, but the Constitution requires a formal declaration of war. That means every war these United States have engaged themselves in that doesn't have a formal declaration of war by Congress doesn't even meet the law by our own standards. Congress passed the buck on this one, as they passed the buck in '91, and as they passed the buck in the 1950s and 1960s with Vietnam and Korea
The United States Constitution does not need to state "we should be defending the whole world." Our President waged war. But here's the answer to what you're alluding to.
Read me back the passage in the Constitution again that states our President 'wages war'. Read that as powers to the President in the Constitution. And don't give me Section 2 either. That is dependent upon Article I, Section 8 being met, which it wasn't
What I truly find hilarious by the neocon argument, and it's been done every time, is that you bring up these same laws. It may meet the neocon and Frum's version of the Constitution but it's not what is in the document. But then again those arguing for globalism don't really give a d#mn what's in the document now do they? Your very arguments show they don't.
Public Law 107-243
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
"Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Public Law 107-40
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:
"Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)"
Public Law 105-238
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.J.RES.54.ENR:
"Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
The President controls the military, as you see in the following excerpt.
Article II
Section 2. [Excerpt of Pertinencies]
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He who controls the military has the power of waging war (doh). Congress may only do the pompous formality of declaring war in their usual, slug-like time.
The President has all powers not given to branches other than the executive. Congress does not have the power to wage war and, thank goodness, talk about it forever before doing anything after we're attacked. Only the radical left could want to relegate all of our fate to Congressional slug trails.
Now let's see, who in the world would want our every response to attack and defense movement to be stuck in Congress for ages?
Article III
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Take an English course, and read it yourself.
http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html
Congress is too lazy to even prosecute anarchists/covert lefties for "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." We, as a nation are glad that Congress does not have power over the military and to wage war. If that were the case, we would be finished.
BTW, all, ever notice how lefties issue much rhetoric and emotion, often change the subject and don't come out bluntly with their intent or opinions? And some pretend to be with the right.
What all this shows is that we can win the public relations part of the fight with the enemy.
...surrender monkeys.
******* The above should not be construed as legal advice. It is part of a base bickering match by uneducated idiots on the Iraq War. I am not a lawyer. If you need a lawyer, seek one. *******