Replies

I felt much the same way until recently. Unfortunately feelings aren't a very good guide to reason. Take a look at the following article and see what you think about it. I used to parse the word "declaration" as if "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is" too. I am taking a deeper look at my motivations for doing that.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/hb107-7.pdf

Also, FWIW, I have been a Duncan Hunter supporter for nearly 11 months and still am.

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.