[Semper]

"The Constitution," is still seaworthy.

It is getting a big hole in its hull with this unconstitutional waging of war by the President. The constitution clearly states that THE CONGRESS declares war. The congress can not legally "resolve" to give the President that responsibility. Check the line item veto attempt a few years ago: Congress passed a law which gave the President a line item veto power which the Supreme Court overturned saying that Congress can not abdicate its constitutional power and responsibility to the President.

Saddam must be delt with but not in a way that ignores our constitution. If the President does not follow the law of the land why should the rest of the country? But then again, if the military followed George's example, they would just not show up for required duty if that was inconvenient (See George's reserve record). This country is greatly in need of LEADERSHIP and George is not providing it here. Just being firm is not enough; you must be firm in right action. Ignoring the Constitution is not right action.

[Salgak]

Ah, but we're NOT declaring war, we're merely waging one. The Constitution was pretty much shot as an issue after Korea, the 'Nan, Panama, Haiti, Desert Storm I, Afghanistan. . .

[RobbyS]

Blame Mr. Lincoln. He waged war for months in his own country with express warrant, even blockaded, his own ports. which was nonsense in terms of international law. Or blame FDR, or Truman, or Eisenhower, or...You get the picture. Besides, if Congress declares war, the it loses whatever control it has anyway. The emaer gency powers of the President have created a constitutional dicatorship. So declaration of war? Another scrape of paper.

[Spruce]

With all due respect. While the following Public Law 107-243: AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 does not contain the phrase "Declaration of War", I believe, as well as the SCOTUS, it fills the Constitutional requirements.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

You need to take a course in Con law.