That's a different part of the constitution, not pertaining to war, it just states other responsibilities.
Congress cannot "declare war for any damn reason it wants to".
Says who? You? I again challenge you to show me a list of constitutionally approved reasons for war. You can't because they don't exist. Funny that you like to keep strict adherence to the constitution only when it suits your argument. Face it, our elected reps have free reign to declare war.
Your statement assumes that our founding fathers rose up against a tyrant who was a warmonger, won their independence, and then didn't seek to limit our government with the Constitution so that we wouldn't be tyrannical like King George was. Come on, man. Just give this one up.
No, because you are wrong, once again. You fail to see that we limited our government by making our elected reps in Congress actually go to the task to formally declare war(use of force) Whatever language gets the point across.
It does not specifically spell out what language is to be used, and that is actually totally beside the point.
No, it's not. But I'm glad you admit the format for the language does not exist. Once again, in order to get it through your head, the purpose of Section and Act is to make Congress do the effort of a formal authorization of a m,ilitary offensive. You bringing up who actually prosecutes the details of the offensive is really "besides the point"and a weak attempt at misdirection. Bottom line, Congress wanted offensive military action and voted for it. According to the requirements of the constitution. Pure, plain and simple. Admit it, you lost again.
Unless you can prove there is no difference between these two, you still have no leg to stand on.
Oh boy, you can't ignore the intent of Congress by having a selective made-up reading of the constitution.
This is going to get incredibly embarrassing for you if you want to cling to this argument. It does state other responsibilities, but includes the common defense. Perhaps you have some other idea of what the common defense might be. If so, would you care to share that with me?
Says who? You? I again challenge you to show me a list of constitutionally approved reasons for war. You can't because they don't exist. Funny that you like to keep strict adherence to the constitution only when it suits your argument. Face it, our elected reps have free reign to declare war.
Says the Constitution. The government is to provide for the common defense. I would think that would be clear enough language for you. The "list" of approved reasons is this: common defense. In your fantasy world, Congress has the power to declare war on anyone for any reason, which would lead to empire building. Although I am not surprised you hold to this view, since you support the nation building we do all over the world. If you don't drop this stupid point, I'll have to whip out the words of the founding fathers on you.
No, because you are wrong, once again. You fail to see that we limited our government by making our elected reps in Congress actually go to the task to formally declare war(use of force) Whatever language gets the point across.
Man, pay attention. I know we limited our government with the Constitution. I'm saying your view of what the Constitution says about war negates the separation of powers and even goes against what the founders fought for.
No, it's not. But I'm glad you admit the format for the language does not exist. Once again, in order to get it through your head, the purpose of Section and Act is to make Congress do the effort of a formal authorization of a m,ilitary offensive. You bringing up who actually prosecutes the details of the offensive is really "besides the point"and a weak attempt at misdirection. Bottom line, Congress wanted offensive military action and voted for it. According to the requirements of the constitution. Pure, plain and simple. Admit it, you lost again.
It is beside the point, since the point in this part of our debate was whether or not the Constitution allows for our military to be used to liberate people in other countries. My argument is that our military is for the defense of this country, not the citizens of another country. Your argument seems to be the opposite, although you've tried to bring the "declaration/authorization" part of our other debate into this one. The fundamental difference between a declaration of war and the authorizations of force simply will not go away just because you ignore them. A use of force authorization gives all the power to the president. A declaration of war gives Congress all the power in the matter, and simply tells the president, as commander in chief, what the military has to accomplish. Unless you can prove there is no difference between these two, you still have no leg to stand on. So now, you've still got to answer the original question, which is this: if you believe our Constitution authorizes us to liberate non-US citizens from dictators, are you ready to commit our American forces to fight wars in North Korea, Cuba, and any other country we view as oppressive towards its people? If you do, then you are NOT a conservative by any standard. Even George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a humble foreign policy and he spoke out against such nation building. So are you a neocon or just a liberal?
Oh boy, you can't ignore the intent of Congress by having a selective made-up reading of the constitution.
My reading of it has not been selective. Yours has been outright imaginary and fantastical.