Mr. White House Counsel, meet the Constitution

I'm proud to say, some students at the Naval Postgraduate School gave him his first lesson.

I doubt this was Mr. Alberto Gonzalez’s first lesson on the Constitution, but I agree that the students at the Naval Post Grad School can be a challenging bunch.

Dr. David Henderson, however, is totally transparent and is never going to approach the level of integrity of his students. I’m sure Henderson knows and understands the meaning of the term, “non-attribution”. Yet he has chosen to violate the trust of both his guess and his students, only to advance himself.

I suggest that Dave start looking for employment elsewhere - Berkeley perhaps.

Interesting that you want a literalist interpretation of the Constitution but you demand that we believe that a declaration of war requires an enemy.

Sorry, that part about a declaration of war needing an enemy simply is not in the Constitution. There's nothing in there about a war needing an ending either.

BTW, you should read #15 also. That's got the part about repelling invasion (and who might do it, and how it is to be brought about or "provided for".)

"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 purpose---and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

Who said it? Abraham Lincoln in a letter to his law partner. Attacking and invading a foreign nation is not defense - it's offensive. And for that, Congress must declare war. The argument here is that the President is to be the judge of whom to attack ("the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned"), a delegation of legislative power thas has been vested toCongress.

The US Supreme Court debated the legality of that position in numerous rulings, among them ex parte Merryman, ex parte Milligan, the Prize Cases, ex parte Bollman and Swartwout and others. In every case, the Executive exercising legislative powers was held unconstitutional. If Mr.Gonzales needs help with the concept of vested and delegated powers he might start with this:

'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).

Congress cannot delegate the legislative power to declare war, or to pick and chose foreign targets.

"not an authorization for anyone to do anything"
A supportable view.
OTOH it would be hard for them to condemn any reasonable action of Washington's after the above "promise of cooperation".

Perhaps responding to Indian attacks was generally considered a matter of "repel[ing] sudden attacks" as Madison phrased the Executive's War Power at the convention. Though the irascible Senator MacClay, when informed of the failure of Hamar's 1791 army, said "A war has actually been undertaken against the Wabash Indians without any authority of Congress, and, what is worse, so far as intelligence has come to hand, we have reason to believe it is unsuccessful. Mind what comes of it. "
I suspect, after the failures of the Hamar and St Clair (sic St. Cyr) armies that Washington wanted the congress "on board" for the next campaign.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.