My understanding was that if we are attacked on our own soil that no declaration of war is needed. I have heard this said many times by military spokesmen and congressmen.
My understanding was that if we are attacked on our own soil that no declaration of war is needed. I have heard this said many times by military spokesmen and congressmen. - sweetliberty
Score: sweetliberty 1 Article 0
The Supreme Court spoke to this issue in 1862.
U.S. Supreme Court
THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
67 U.S. 635 (Black)
THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.
December Term, 1862
(excerpt)
It is contended that the President cannot exercise war powers until Congress shall first have 'declared war,' or, at least, done some act recognizing that a case exists for the exercise of war powers, and of what war powers.
There is nothing in the distribution of powers under our Constitution which makes the exercise of this war power illegal, by reason of the authority under which this capture was made.
I. It is not necessary to the exercise of war powers by the President, in a case of foreign war, that there should be a preceding act of Congress declaring war.
The Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'declare war.'
But there are two parties to a war. War is a state of things, and not an act of legislative will. If a foreign power springs a war upon us by sea and land, during a recess of Congress, exercising all belligerent rights of capture, the question is, whether the President can repel war with war, and make prisoners and prizes by the army, navy and militia which he has called into service and employed to repel the invasion, in pursuance of general acts of Congress, before Congress can meet? or whether that would be illegal?
In the case of the Mexican war, there was only a subsequent [67 U.S. 635, 660] recognition of a state of war by Congress; yet all the prior acts of the President were lawful acts of war.