“Terrorists take 1000 Americans hostage outside US territorial waters on an Italian cruise ship. Congress is not in session. The terrorists kill 100 Americans and say they will kill 100 more per hour until America releases all terrorists worldwide.”
1. Taking on terrorists in international waters is not “war” as reasonably defined. Launching hundreds of cruise missiles at the military of another country, followed by a large-scale bombing campaign is, on the other hand.
2. The mass killing of Americans is the very definition of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States.” So even if it was a foreign government who killed the US citizens, there would be no case for the President being prevented to act in the absence of congressional authorization.
3. The Libya scenario is the definition of the kind of war where you do want congressional approval, I.e. a war of choice where no threat to US territory, property, or citizens exists.
If conservatives are going to be taken seriously when pushing for a meaningful interpretation of the constitution, making the requirement for congressional authorization of war void is not a good path to go down.
To argue that close combat isn't war while dropping missiles is is sophistry and not to be taken seriously. War is armed conflict between parties. But I agree that not all military action rises to the the level of "war" as commonly understood when the Constitution was drawn. Of course the duration of the armed conflict doesn't make you any less dead if you are KIA. Do you think terrorists taking Americans hostage is not an act of war? Can and should the CIC respond in kind without a Congressional resolution or declaration of war? There is no section in the Constitution mentioning exigent circumstance but certainly the POTUS has the power to make war on those terrorists, no?
2. The mass killing of Americans is the very definition of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States.” So even if it was a foreign government who killed the US citizens, there would be no case for the President being prevented to act in the absence of congressional authorization.
For some folks the facts don't matter. The purpose of that section of the WPA was to prevent the CIC from doing just that. See President Ford and the evacuation of Americans and SOuth Vietnamese from Saigon in 1975 while Congress dithered. But it is nice to know that you think the POTUS can acting constitutionally by making war on terrorists who make war on American citizens constitutionally without an act of Congress.
3. The Libya scenario is the definition of the kind of war where you do want congressional approval, I.e. a war of choice where no threat to US territory, property, or citizens exists.
I agree. Obama is moron. What else is new?
If conservatives are going to be taken seriously when pushing for a meaningful interpretation of the constitution, making the requirement for congressional authorization of war void is not a good path to go down.
Congress has powers to check the executive. They have the power of the purse and the power of impeachment. The CIC has the power to make war and when American citizens are attacked that is exactly what he should do. Gadaffi killed American citizens and had Obama explained that his goal was to kill/remove Gadaffi for doing that with the bombing I would support him right now. But he didn't because like I said he's a moron.
But diminishing the power of the CIC for all time with idiotic unconstitutional bs like the WPA because America elected a moron is not something I'm getting on board with.
Adios.