Replies

>> The formal statement of the warrant is to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation (”marque”, meaning frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party (”reprisal”), not necessarily a nation, to a degree and in a way that was proportional to the original offense. It is considered a retaliatory measure short of a full declaration of war, and by maintaining a rough proportionality, has been intended to justify the action to other nations, who might otherwise consider it an act of war or piracy. <<

Declaring outright war is not superior from a civil-liberties’ perspective, but much more dangerous. The President has powers in times of war that neither the President nor Congress did not feel were necessary in several recent conflicts. To somehow quibble that a war is not legal because Congress only issued a resolution of war, rather than a declaration of war is to say that the President is impelled to suspend civil liberties whenever we must act to defend ourselves from foreign misbehavior. That is preposterous, and Paul’s implicit and accidental implication of such establishes that far from being the sole voice of reason and intellect he makes himself out to be, he is a dangerous fool.

Paul has provided a perspective which is valuable to have in the House on many issues, but it is a good thing that he will never be a serious candidate.

The formal statement of the warrant is to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation (”marque”, meaning frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party (”reprisal”), not necessarily a nation, to a degree and in a way that was proportional to the original offense. It is considered a retaliatory measure short of a full declaration of war, and by maintaining a rough proportionality, has been intended to justify the action to other nations, who might otherwise consider it an act of war or piracy.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal were issued to INDIVIDUALS who could show injury or loss because of the actions of a person from another nation.

-----

To somehow quibble that a war is not legal because Congress only issued a resolution of war, rather than a declaration of war is to say that the President is impelled to suspend civil liberties whenever we must act to defend ourselves from foreign misbehavior.

There is no 'quibble' about it. Authorizations and resolutions are nothing more than unconstitutional exercise of authority for the sole purpose of doing an end-run around the Constitution.

The Founders PURPOSELY made it difficult to declare war by giving that power to Congress, but easy to declare peace by giving the President the treaty-making authority.

The absolutely disgusting thing is that so many 'conservatives' applaud federal actions for the simple reason that they agree with it. They have no clue as to the Constitutionality of the action itself...nor do they appear to even care.

----

The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.
~George Washington

The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
~James Madison

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
~Abraham Lincoln, Letter to William Herndon Feb. 15, 1848