War powers, the Presidency, and the Congress

A law requiring a Declaration before hostilities would not work for a number of reasons. One example:

We come under nuclear attack (or any other attack that prevents Congress from convening). The President cannot employ weapons to defend the US until a Declaration of war is made. US (nuclear) weapons are destroyed on the ground before Congress can convene, and we are reduced to rubble.
 
The president ALWAYS has the power to act without congress, but without a formal declaration of war powers, it provides for immediate defense on the risk of impeachment for bad decisions, as opposed to now, when hands are smacked and little else.
 
And this is a reply of competence?
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!! I sat and listened to this guy IN PERSON for months. I was able to listen to his diatribes and his responses to questions from students. The first day of class the very first thing he addressed was to make it clear that his mectures were to NEVER be taped. If he caught someone with a tape recorded he would fail them from the class. Now why do you think this is? Maybe so he can have his perfectl little academic utopia without fear of reprisal. Ya think?

Irons is a liberal nutcase. I think its really funny that you cite him since he is as anti-liberty as many of his brethren.

Either way however I'm far more qualified than you to comment on his body of work.


P.S. Osborn... I'm still waiting on the case that says jury nullification is valid. I've got a bunch of authority from several circuits saying its not, so lets see what you've got.
 
Under International Law, there must be a respondent entity that one declares war on. You cannot sign a formal Declaration of War on an idea. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of 9/11. This was in response to terrorism, and it's basing.

Terrorists, under international law, are listed with robbers, brigands, and pirates. A country does not need a formal declaration to deal with them, and never has. The Hague Accords do not afford them access to it's strictures, nor does the Geneva Convention.

If you need an example, look to the actions dealing with the Barberry Pirates vs. the U.S.

As for Iraq, a state of war existed between Iraq and the Coalition the first time that Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Surrender Agreement that ended active hostilities against Iraq in the 1990s. This is easily checked in International Law. By the way, where was the Declaration of War there? Or in Somalia? Or in Kosovo?

The LAST thing that is needed in America is to let politicians have any say in how a conflict is run. First, they don't have the knowledge to run a war. Second, they don't have the time. Third, they are too polarized along party lines to actually do what needs to be done. Vietnam comes readily to mind.
 
The LAST thing that is needed in America is to let politicians have any say in how a conflict is run. First, they don't have the knowledge to run a war. Second, they don't have the time. Third, they are too polarized along party lines to actually do what needs to be done. Vietnam comes readily to mind.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with your statements except for the implicit assumption that the President is not a politician. I think this quoted paragraph applies equally to all elected officials.
 
Yes, the President is a politician.

However, as has been stated, he is Constitutionally the commander in chief of all military forces of the United States.

The Constitution affords no similiar status to any other elected politican -- not the President of the Senate, not the Speaker of the House, not even the Secretary of Defense -- Section 2, Clause 1.

Congress serves an enabling role for the President in his role as CIC -- Section 8, clauses 10 through 16.

Clause 10 is a really interesting clause, though, especially for its potential implication in the Global War on Terror.
 
The presidency was originally intended to be a figure head, with no power. It was a necessary evil in dealing with other monarchies, but, given the term in office, and the time in communication, the founders intended the position to have NO POWER.

This design was totally destroyed by FDR, as he threatened, and effectively blackmailed the 4 horseman into retirement, and, expanded the presidency to it's present absurd power.

Therefore, I suggest we take the limits of power back to their original Constitutional parameters, and give the right to declare war ONLY to congress.
I like the idea that the group that is most concerned with the United States makes the choice to go to war.

I do NOT like the idea that one man can put us into a war, even for 60 days, considering the cost of war these days.
Nor do I want another,

"I got caught with my Johnson in Monica's mouth, let's bomb Afganistan." to occur again.

I'd much rather have all my tax money spent on fixing the United States, rather then financing third world dictatorships, or, trying to attack countries that border on China, 3000 miles away.

I also want a clear congressional vote, so I know who is responsible for putting us into a war.

Finally, ANYTHING that reduces power, and the number of laws our government has in this country is a good thing.

S
 
So is it also OK for these people who have the best of interesty in mind to give your money away to victims of natural disasters and tragedies? (some of the 9/11 victims families were given over $1 million in compensation)
 
I'd be less worried if you gave the authority to declare war to the ASPCA. Can you imagine Congress having to debate a declaration of war based upon a Treaty obligation? By the time the usual poseurs got done, a year would be over.

The idea that the President can order military action is sound. If the United States were under attack via ICBM, there is a need for an immediate response, not a debate. The same goes with Treaty obligations. The existing form of Congress is hardly suited to take bold and immediate action on anything but their own pay and benefits.:barf:
 
"The presidency was originally intended to be a figure head, with no power."

I beg your pardon?

The office of the President was NEVER intended to be a powerless figurehead position.

A simple review of the powers accorded the to the President by the Constitution should make that very clear.

Article II, Sections 2 and 3, outline the powers of the President.

The framers of the Constitution INTENTIONALLY gave the office of the President the powers that it did as part of the system of checks and balances that they established.

A "figurehead" president is such as the one found in Israel. No true legislative or legal powers save duties of state.
 
Not a figurehead

But by design weaker than the Legislature. At least that's how I read the Constitution. But there's enough ambiguity in the language for there to have been a 200+ year tug-o-war between the branches of government... which is as it should be.

Right now, I'd say that the Legislature needs to push back, hard. Six years of partisan one-party rule, with an Executive determined to expand it's power, has moved the marker way, way over to one side.

I'm not OK with that. Even though the next President is likely to be from my party. Executive power is something that should be viewed with deep suspicion, IMHO. Maybe even fear.

--Shannon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top