Anti-war Stance Is Right, Not Left

I just think its an interesting discussion when people start claiming that you have to have a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't say that, and I don't see any logical basis to infer that is the case.
I see now where your coming from, and I believe where we differ in view.
One of the fundamental positions of nearly all the founders was that we would pretty much leave other nations alone with regard to military force. There were numerous discussions around whether to even have a standing army. The fear was that if we did have a standing army that the temptation to use that power for reasons other than defending us would be too great and that, much like Europe had done for years and years, we would continually be entangled in affairs that shouldn't concern us.
The idea that we would attack without a state of war existing with the nation we were attacking, was not only cowardly, but not fitting for a free people.
Consequently, and in that context, only the Congress was authorized to engage us in a war ,consequently the term "declare" war. To prevent the nations Commander In Chief from being in a position of not being able to respond in a timely manor to being attacked, the term "declare" was used instead of the term "make" war. Had the Constitution state that only Congress could MAKE war, then it would be imposable to respond to an attack in a timely manor; ESPECIALLY 219 years ago when it would take weeks, if not months, for Congress to convene.
The clear intention was, with the exception of responding to an attack, that only the Congress could engage us in war. The Congress certainly has the authority and the power to limit the extent of our engagement and terminate, extend, expand, or retract the mission.
Our difference in view sounds like it may only be in terminology.

Cordially,
GE

Have to agree with you on this one. The intent of the act was to allow the Commander-In-Chief the ability to respond to emergency situations but limit the situations that he would get into. When the rubber meets the road though, it didn't limit anything.

Precisely. Given the changing nature of modern global warfare, the intent of the War Powers Act was perfectly understandable. However, like everything else in politics, it became a tool easily used to circumvent existing powers when those powers were inconvenient, or it was more politically expedient to maneuver around them. Philosophically, under the War Powers Act, Presidents go to war, and these wars can be attacked easily by the President's political opponents---like we did when Clinton intervened in Bosnia. Under a Congressionally-approved Declaration of War, the people go to war, and the nation is mobilized. Opponents of declared wars are actually opposing the expressed will of the people through their representatives in Congress.

The idea that we would attack without a state of war existing with the nation we were attacking, was not only cowardly,

How is it cowardly? A joint resolution or some other act passed by Congress is no less public or "brave" than a declaration of war.

....but not fitting for a free people.

Again, how so? If anything, I see the exact opposite. Let's suppose there are some raids from Canada into the U.S. Not an all-out invasion, but maybe more along the lines of hit and run raids by some radicals in Canada. No official support from the British government, either.

Under the "all or nothing" of declaring war, there are only two options. The first is just to do nothing, which isn't very good. The second is a full declaration of war against Great Britain, with the unlimited power that confers on the President to determine the scope of hostilities and their proper ending. It's giving more unchecked power to one branch, not less.

ur difference in view sounds like it may only be in terminology.

Hmmm. You may be right about that. It's the difference between "declaring" war, which is Congress' prerogative, and "making" war, which is the President's. Of course, there's nothing in the Constitution authorizing the Executive to "make" war either, so I'm not sure where that gets us. It's definitely an interesting topic with decent arguments on both sides.

How is it cowardly? A joint resolution or some other act passed by Congress is no less public or "brave" than a declaration of war.

With all due respect, and forgive the interruption, but I believe it is. A joint resolution provides cover for patriots like John Kerry to say he voted one thing (i.e., a legally-crafted document), while philosophically meaning something else entirely. A declaration of war parses nothing, holding a legislator entirely accountable for his vote.

We also export our culture. We can mind our own business, and we will still get hit.

How does the anti-war right propose to deal with that?

I clicked on "View Replies". I got "No Replies."

You are 100% right. Moreover, we are at the top of the heap. They will blame us for the moon and sky. The CIA causes every stubbed toe (ingrown toenails belong to Mossad, though -- but supported by the CIA).

It's like telling the rape victim it was her fault for showing a bit of ankle.

So I guess the Bircher and Islamist cultures do have something in common.

A declaration of war parses nothing, holding a legislator entirely accountable for his vote.

That can just as easily be argued the other way. A declaration of war is an incredibly blunt instrument because it is open-ended. A Kerry could just as easily claim he voted for war only because of the President's promise to limit the goals of that war. And that because a declaration of war is an all or nothing proposition, the only other choice was to forbid any military action at all.

A resolution that contains specific qualifiers gives the Senate the ability to craft the precise limitations they are going to place on the President. It's a more focused instrument, so voting for it has a more definite intent.

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.