Thus any suggestion that bin Laden's declaration of war puts us at war is false. We are not at war either as our leaders have not declared a constitutional war.
We are involved in an unjust action.
And by the way, have you ever noticed that the power of Congress to declare war and the power to repel invasions are listed separately?
From the Constitution:
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Almost looks like declaring war is not always necessary for the calling forth of troops. And that is just looking at the Constitution. The War Powers Act makes it even plainer to me.
It is true that bin Laden is not a head of state and cannot declare wars; his attack on us from behind the authority of the Taliban is one of his many crimes. His jihad, however, won't become a just war even if declared by a legitimate head of state.
our leaders have not declared a constitutional war.
It is wrong that they didn't, since a declaration of war would be an important formality in shaping our domestic policy on a wartime basis. For example, the military tribunals that Bush wants to set up to try non-citizens suspected of terrorism are on shaky legal grounds because of that. But we owe no contitutional formalities to the Taliban, and they were notified of our hostile intentions in advance. Thus the justice of our actions there does not hinge on the fact that the Congress didn't declare a war.
The U.S. is not a collective.
Since there are at least two U.S. citizens, it is.
It isn't even remotely libertarian to promote Empire.
Why?
If what you say is true -- and it's not -- then your words "constitutional war" is a redundancy.