What - you want folks like x42 & #97, Reno et al to singlehandedly have the power to invade a foreign country, or to send Reno into Waco to slaughter men, women and children? Should a President have the power to send armed forces against another Randy Weaver over a specious charge, and kill his child, dog and wife simply on a whim?
Where in the Constitution does it grant power to kidnap a child from his home with military forces a la Elian Gonzalez, abandoning Constitutional methods of resolving disputes. We have a judiciary for a reason, to rule on matters in doubt:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases ... between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."Again, I have no problem with the President defending our country - that's his function. Attacking and invading a foreign nation is not defense - it's offensive. And for that, Congress must declare war.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
The courts have jurisdiction, now have they ever answered this very question? The section of the Constitution granting the power claimed is in Article I, which states that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Numerous decisions by SCOTUS have held that the exercise of enumerated powers contained in Article I cannot be delegated, or suspended. Amomg them ex parte Merryman, ex parte Milligan, the Prize Cases, Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout and others.
Please note that I highlighted the term "vested" in Article I. To vest means to grant an absolute right (present and future). But rather than you accept my word on it, how about I allow the words of US Supreme Court Justice John Jay speak instead?
The same expression, "shall be vested," occurs in other parts of the Constitution in defining the powers of the other coordinate branches of the Government. The first article declares that "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Will it be contended that the legislative power is not absolutely vested? that the words merely refer to some future act, and mean only that the legislative power may hereafter be vested? The second article declares that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Could Congress vest it in any other person, or is it to await their good pleasure whether it is to vest at all? It is apparent that such a construction, in either case, would be utterly inadmissible."
Justice Jay, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, (1816)
Freegards.
You truly need to stop reading what everyone said about everything two hundred years ago, and try learning a few things about today.
You can start by reading a little about the War Powers Resolution.
Which by the way, is what we're discussing here. So, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elian Gonzalez, asides from being a formidable set of grievances, and an indictment on government amuck, are little more than an attempt to hide the basic question behind emotions, and rethorical smoke and mirrors.
"Congress must declare war"
Actually, Congress has the power to declare war, they're not obligated to do it.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the president, in his role as Commander In Chief, has the power to order immediate military action when faced with an attack on the US. In other words, the president doesn't have to call a special session of congress to ask them to please allow him to address the fact that there are a few hundred ChiCom nukes headed our way.
With all due respect to the Founders, I don't think they could have foretold the speed and efficiency of today's war machines.
The WPR forces the president to come before Congress before retaliating in the name of defense against the perpetrator of the attack however. After the President has taken the proper steps to handle the immediate urgency of repelling an attack, Congress then decides what further military action is merited in this case, but it isn't limited to a declared war. An action which gives the president, in his role as Commander In Chief, extraordinary powers.
There is a lot more in the WPR that gives Congress a tighter reign over the president's ability to use the US Armed Forces, then the other way around. Which is why Nixon was against it.
"The courts have jurisdiction, now have they ever answered this very question?"
See, this is what I mean.
Perhaps by paying a little more attention to what's going on today, rather than what went on in the 19th Century, you would know the answer to that.
I'm sure you'll have fun finding the answer to that question.
Luis--21st Century