[EBUCK]

There are no highfalutin' declarations.

Not that our supreme law of the land would demand such a thing. I mean it's not like the pres has to ask permission to commit our troops and resources to a war or anything, that would of course curb his power and subject him to the people. Wouldn't want that.

EBUCK

[Grut]

There are no highfalutin' declarations.

Well, look at it this way: given the quality of our Congress, any declarations they made would be lowfalutin' anyway.

[gitmo]

Congress already gave authority to the president. Immediately after 9/11 congress passed a resolution giving the President authority to conduct war and to capture anyone he determines was connected to the attack on the US.

[NetValue]

"There are no highfalutin' declarations. Not that our supreme law of the land would demand such a thing. I mean it's not like the pres has to ask permission to commit our troops and resources to a war or anything, that would of course curb his power and subject him to the people. Wouldn't want that."

You got the words right but your sarcsm is all wrong. The drafters of the Constitution foresaw the need for the President as Commander in Chief to ACT with dispatch and thus they deliberately omitted "permission" from Congress. They gave Congress the power to declare war....knowing that it might be a time consuming partisan process just as it is today with all those empty-headed liberals in place. The framers of the Constitution knew the game of politics quite well and anticipated the disloyal opposition.