FREEP THIS POLL

WTNH TV ^ | 7/31/02 | puppage

[Puppage]

Should the US Attack Iraq

[Puppage]

Gee, you're important, huh? You know some people. I feel sorry for them.

[Cacophonous]

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To...declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

This means that it is Congress that can declare war, not the executive. If the President wants to declare war, he is obligated to get Congress to do it. He (the President) then executes the war.

[CapandBall]

...or not. The constitution does not stipulate that war must be "declared" in order for the US to wage war.

[H8klintoon]

I must admit I have very mixed emotions. Those of us that have experienced close combat know what we will be asking of the young men and women that will do the fighting. Some will die while we watch it on Fox. Are we ready for that again? War is the worst of all human experiences, IMHO.

I want to proceed with extreme caution. I do, however, feel that GWB, Rumsfield, et.al, will proceed with what has to be done and do it with all of the hell and fury that can be mustered. Hit hard, fast and relentless young warriors. May God have mercy on us all.

[Gunrunner2]

Hello Winnie, it appears they pulled the poll after all, and by any measure, a rapid switch of the numbers on that sort of scale leads one to believe either the pool has been "fixed" to reflect a predetermined result, or that someone hacked the site.

I am inclinded to think a hack occured, as the poll has been pulled, for if it was a "true" poll reflecting such overwhelming anti-war numbers, you can bet "they" would have kept the poll up there longer--for all to see and quote.

[Cacophonous]

It also does not say the Executive shall have the power to declare or wage war. Implicitly, then, he does not.

If the Founders' intent was to for the Executive to be able wage his own wars, why would that excerpt from Article 1, Section 8 be necessary?

As I've said, I'm not a legal expert, but I do know that the Founding Fathers wasted no words or ideas as far as the Constitution is concerned. If they said it, it meant something. Conversely, that fact that something was not said meant something too.

It's only lawyers that try to read between the lines that screw things up.

[OPS4]

I emailed my response so that they have it anyway.
Ops4 God Bless America!

[CapandBall]

It is agreed then. The US is not "obliged" to declare war (in the constitutional sense) in order to wage war.

I'm glad we could agree on this, and I'm sure you understand why I had to take exception to your post #57

[Cacophonous]

I'm afraid you misread my post #57. I said the POTUS is obliged (i.e., has an obligation) to get Congress to declare war. He has no explicit or implicit right to wage war without that declaration, as Congress is the only body that can declare war.

[Gunrunner2]

>>He has no explicit or implicit right to wage war without that declaration, as Congress is the only body that can declare war.<<

Not exactly.

If the US was under attack with the bad guys marching asore, or the bad guys invading US territory or a base somewhere, the president has the authority to conduct "war" in defense of this great nation. He is not tied down, unable to act until the congress says so. No sir.

The POTUS has the power and legitimate authority as comander-in chief to order troops to fight. . .he does not need congressional approval before he can send troops into battle.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

You are going to say that the Canadian Health system is better than ours?? As someone who worked here in our system, and knows many who worked as Doctors and nurses in Canada.. I'd say you are in need of an intellectual ENEMA!! Clean out "all" you think, and start anew. You will feel much better.

Then if you don't feel better,. call me in the morning. But wait!!! If that is in Canada,.. leave a message!!

[CapandBall]

Yes, Congress is the only body that can "declare war", and if the POTUS wished war to be declared (formal sense) he would obliged to ask Congress to do that.

However, a formal declaration of war is not required, Congress has already "explicitly" given the POTUS the green light to wage war.

See/review: JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE - September 14, 2001. In part...

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces (a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[Shooter 2.5]

I guess I have to stay out of this one.
Unless I'm willing to go first, I can't expect someone to go in my place.
This isn't the time for it. We still have a mess to clean up in Afganistan.
Ask me again in another year.

[Cacophonous]

Nice responses from both of you. You haven't convinced me, entirely, because I'm mystified as to why Congress would want to abdicate its duty (but I guess that fact that it's Congress answers that question). I also still see this country as a republic (though I know that ended long ago) and not a democracy or a despotism (whereby the President can do any damned thing he pleases). And a republic has different rules.

But I appreciate the civil discussion.

[CapandBall]

I appreciate the civil discussion.

...as do I.

I am not supporting any POTUS as dictator. I still like to think the US is a Republic, and I have concerns in that regard. A formal Declaration of War (or lack thereof) is not one of them.

[Gunrunner2]

>> I appreciate the civil discussion. <<

So do I.

I dunno, but to me a republic is a representative form of democracy, and it still exists here---as our elections every 2/4/6 years attest.

At any rate, I will accept a partial victory, and bid you a great day.

Cheers.