Tonight's Debate

The article, while interesting still does not discuss the major point. That is that there is no set way to declare war. It talks of the dilenation of powers between the executive and congressional branch of the government. It is Congress’s job to declare war and it is the Executive branch’s job (with the President as C in C) to wage it. They feared a king who would go to war at a whim, hence the deliniation of powers. In fact, in 1973 Congress further abrogated their responsibilities with the War Powers Act.

However, that is exactly what happened for the Iraq war. The Congress passed a resolution saying that if the arms inspections did not work, then the President can go to war in Iraq. The arms inspectors were kicked out and not let back in (i.e. not working) and Bush went to war in Iraq.

I used the constitution and history to prove the point that the war in Iraq (of which you were alluding to previously though not outright saying it) is constitutional and you use history to try to muddle the argument.

You still have not shown how the power to declare war was takend away by Congress. A congressman proposed the resolution and it was passed in both houses. I’m sure that the congressman was prompted by the White house to do it but that happens all the time. For instance, the constitution also says that all spending bills will begin in the house. Yet, how many times are the President’s tax cuts/budget cuts etc put forth by a bill in the congress? A lot.

I’ll look forward to hear your argument how this war is exactly unconstitutional.

So you don’t understand my example and I’m accused of a low grade form of thinking. Nice, can’t argue the point so put me down.

Pot...meet...kettle.

I assume you are a Ron Paul nut. You guys think you know so much about the Constitution, but the fact is all you know is what Ron Paul tells you is in the Constitution.

Insults and incorrect assumptions. You opened with the adolescent mud throwing so whining about getting the same back registers a zero on my 'give a crap meter.' It doesn't show much on the 'detect intelligence meter' either. ;^)

Apparently you have some idea that the word "declaration" means whatever you want it to mean. Like the "living Constitution" way of looking at things. Like twisting the meaning of "power," which means "authority," to mean Congressmen would actually be "making" money with their own hands instead of doing what Congress does; authorizing things.

I can see you still don’t want to debate the central point of the argument. The fact that the constitution says that the congress has the power to declare war and that is exactly what they did by passing the resolution to go to war with Iraq if they continued to thrwart the weapons inspectors.

You obviously do not understand the basic example I gave you about this with coining money. It was not a put down, but merely an example of the fact that the constitution gives certain branches of government powers, but does not tell them in detail how to carry it out.

The only put down I had in my whole post was saying you are probably a Ron Paul nut. However, you claim to be a Duncan Hunter supporter who oh by the way supports the war. I myself am a Fred Thompson supporter. I would be a Duncan Hunter supporter except that he is polling at 1% nationally and has no shot at the Presidency. The only people who would be offended by being called a Ron Paul nut supporter are Ron Paul supporters. Methinks thou dost protest too much and is actually a Ron Paul supporter. They are the only Republicans who would go around saying that the Iraq war was unconstitutional.

BTW, I like Ron Paul’s fiscal and domestic policies. However, the fact of the matter is that he is out in left field on his foreign policy.

“Apparently you have some idea that the word “declaration” means whatever you want it to mean.”

Apparently, you have an idea that declaration means that the leaders of the house and senate get in front of a microphone and say “We are in a state of war with Iraq” in front of a joint session of Congress. What does declare war mean in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution except that we pass a joint resolution of Congress giving the President the power to go to war? Or something similar. Who is the one that is reading the Constitution as a living document? I gave you the parts of the constitution that it applies to and how they went about doing it. You are the one giving your feelings here.

You know, Article 2, section 3 of the Constitution requires that the President give Congress a “State of the Union” from time to time. In the beginning, this was a written document submitted by the President once a year. Now it is a joint session of congress. The constitution gives the president the power to convene a joint session of congress on extraordinary occasions. Is something that happens once a year an extraordinary occasion? The President delivers it now in the form of a speech. That’s not how they originally did it. Is this unconstitutional also? I say no, because the Constitution is purposefully vague on how to carry out this duty by the President. Just that it is to be carried out. The same principles apply to declaring war.

I could go on with example after example in the Constitution with this idea (a duty is delegated to a branch of government, but the specifics of carrying out this duty is left to that branch of government). There are a lot more examples.

...and that is exactly what they did by passing the resolution to go to war with Iraq...

Is it? Prove it. A declaration is a declaration. It is a very straightforward word.

You obviously do not understand the basic example I gave you about this with coining money. It was not a put down,...

I didn't say it was a put down.

...an example of the fact that the constitution gives certain branches of government powers, but does not tell them in detail how to carry it out.

The Constitution says Congress has the "power." It exercises that power legislatively and I will bet that in all matters concerning the coinage of money Congress has done just that. If they haven't then one example of by-passing Constitutional restrictions is hardly a justification for by-passing it elsewhere is it? If it is then nothing in the Constitution is valid anymore and this debate is moot.

The only put down I had in my whole post was saying you are probably a Ron Paul nut.

How many insults do I have to endure before I can return one? Are you speshul?

The only people who would be offended by being called a Ron Paul nut supporter are Ron Paul supporters.

More sloppy logic.

Methinks thou dost protest too much and is actually a Ron Paul supporter.

Think whatever you like. I have eleven months of posting my unwavering support of DH to show for myself.

They are the only Republicans who would go around saying that the Iraq war was unconstitutional.

That is unequivocally false.

However, the fact of the matter is that he is out in left field on his foreign policy.

I basically agree and have posted that thought myself.

Look up the word 'declaration' and it will all come into focus for you. Or not.

Since Congress denies having declared war I guess they have defined that.

“Is it? Prove it. A declaration is a declaration. It is a very straightforward word.”

de·clare (d-klâr)
v. de·clared, de·clar·ing, de·clares
v.tr.
1. To make known formally or officially. See Synonyms at announce.
2. To state emphatically or authoritatively; affirm.
3. To reveal or make manifest; show.
4. To make a full statement of (dutiable goods, for example).
5. Games To designate (a trump suit or no-trump) with the final bid of a hand in bridge.

From the joint resolution to authorize use of armed forces against Iraq which was passed by both houses of Congress:

“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. “

There is your constitutional requirements right there my friend.

“Since Congress denies having declared war I guess they have defined that.”

Sounds like you have been listening to Hillary Clinton too much. Exactly which congressman is denying having declared war? Please give an example. If it’s Dennis Kucinich we will know where you are coming from. Most of the libs that voted for it, say it was either a mistake (John Kerry, John Edwards) or that Bush lied to them about WMDs(Hillary Clinton). I have never heard one come up with the line that they did not authorize the President to go to war unless they did actually vote against the resolution. You have asked me to prove everything I have said and I have. Now lets see if you can come up with one Congressman who claims that the president went to war without an authorization from Congress. Or as the definition of declare says: “To make known formally or officially”. Is Duncan Hunter saying that the President is fighting an unconstitutional war? I think not. His son is on a second tour currently.

“Well, you made a good case for yourself. Then you started acting like a jackass again.”

And you say that I have been the one throwing personal insults around. The reason you think I’m acting like a jackass is because I am right and you have nothing to argue with except your feelings. You make accusations about congressman saying that this is an unconstitutional war, yet cannot come up with a single example of one. I’m sure if there is an example, it would be some liberal congressman or Ron Paul and you would be unveiled as to who you listen to. It’s certainly not Duncan Hunter, the man you claim to support for President. Everything I have said, I have backed up.

The fact of the matter is that this is a constitutional war in Iraq. The constitution says that the Congress has the power to declare war. I looked up the word for you because you do not seem to understand what the word means. I have shown that to you. Having a joint resolution passed by both houses of Congress falls well within the meaning of the word “declare”. You have no argument left so you attempt to insult me.

Since you cannot do anything but throw insults my way I’m done with this discussion. Unless you have something substantive to say.

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.