Calling for Donors!
Give what you can
Or donate monthly, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
Lazamataz is our best friend!
Posted on 05/10/2011 7:36:54 AM PDT by Tom Mullen
Presidential hopeful Ron Paul insists that the U.S. government shouldn’t go to war without a declaration of war. His son Rand has also taken this position, as have several libertarian-leaning Tea Party candidates. According to the U.S. Constitution, the congress is invested with the power to declare war. These constitutionalists say that obtaining one should be a requirement before military action is authorized.
I’m not sure that this is resonating with those that are unfamiliar with what a declaration of war means. For most people, the declaration of war is a formality whereby the president makes sure that it is agreeable to the Congress that he utilizes the military. Some might even go so far as to say it is the president “asking permission” from the Congress to do so. By this reasoning, both Presidents Bush and Obama have complied, especially considering H.J. Res. 114 (October 16, 2002). With that resolution, Congress authorized the president to use military force in the war on terror. What is the difference between that and a declaration of war?
The answer is both intuitive and supported by history. First, a “declaration” has nothing to do with “permission.” Neither is it the same thing as creation or initiation. One can only declare something that already exists. Therefore, a declaration of war does not create a war or initiate a war. A declaration of war is a resolution passed by Congress recognizing that the United States is already at war.
(Excerpt) Read more at tommullen.net ...
On the other hand, if the US beleives that it is appropriate for us to initiate the use of force (Iraq, Libya, Grenada, etc.) then I think a Congressional Declaration of War should be mandatory. Get Congress behind the effort, or don't start the effort.
Related to that, I believe that all Wars should be fought to win. That means we kill people and we break things. Men, women, children -- sorry about the deaths, but we're here to win. Again, if we don't feel comfortable with that, then we should not declare the war and we should not start the fight.
Lastly, nuclear weapons should understood to be on the table at all times. When we delcare war, we should state that nuclear weapons will be used in the conflict if we deem it necessary. Don't like it? Want to fight with one arm tied behind your back? Then maybe we aren't serious about the conflict and maybe we should skip the Declaration and just stay home.
We won WWII, fighting against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany simultaneously, and we did it in less than 4 years. There is absolutely no excuse for us to wage war for a longer period of time than that, unless we are losing and fighting for our lives. Fight to win. Make it quick, or stay home.
Obama has "complied" with what?
A vague authorization from nine years ago?
The nebulousness of the term "war on terror" needs to be addressed.
Very good post!! A non-declaration of war simply leads to a way for spineless Congressmen to back out if it doesn’t go as planned. But, as you said, if we went in with the strongest intention to win quick and get out, a FORMAL Declaration of War from the United States would MEAN something again.
Far better to put the most powerful organization in the history of the planet into the hands of just one random idiot. (Yeah, just TRY and argue against the use of that word after 2008!!!) That should always guarantee that it will be used safely and properly. No individual would ever choose to misuse anything like that, especially when they have nobody to answer to, and the soldiers themselves have to cause to question the validity of the orders to storm the Supreme Court, or lay siege to an American city, or empty assorted museums for his personal collection.
(Try reading a little bit of history, people... and try to have just a little tiny bit of regard for those who gave us one of the 3 most important writings in the history of the world.)
(”have NO cause to”)
I would think with a true declaration of war, it frees the president from much of the anti-war criticism (”hey Congress declared this war, I’m just doing what they told me”)and makes it easier to prosecute treason and sedition.
Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Think there was some adhering and aid and comfort from Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink and other a-holes during Iraq? How about Jane Fonda during Vietnam?
Wars against the Barbary Pirates lasted fifteen years. The Indian Wars of the post Civil War era lasted twenty years. The The Moro Wars in the Philippines lasted twelve years. The Banana Wars in Central America went on for twenty years.
Our current actions are more like these examples, IMHO.
click on my name and read
I was told Bush was talked out of declaring war on 911 because of two things:
1. the attack on the twin towers would then be classified as an act of war
2. insurance policies would be null and void. Insurance will not compensate you for losses due to “acts of war”.
A formal declaration of war is the only way to unite the nation to win a major war. Any alternative is open to divisions. It was last done in WW II and that was the last war that we won. Since then the country has been divided - Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. You want to win - pass a formal declaration of war.
Why not a formal declaration of war?
Wars are "Declared" only against sovereign nations in order to formally notify them that a state of war exists between two sovereign states. The Declaration of War was a diplomatic courtesy which, before the CNN era, prevented accusations of "sneak attack" as happened when the Japanese Embassy in Washington could not type fast enough to deliver the Decalration of War to the White House before the Imperial Japanese Navy delivered it's bombs to Pearl Harbor.
A Congressional Authorization to Use Force fulfills all the Constitutional requirements regarding the war making powers of Congress.
Neither the Taliban militia nor the Al Qaeda terrorist network is considered a sovereign nation and therefore a declaration of war is not appropriate.
Likewise, the United States never considered the Confederate States of America to be a sovereign nation and war was never declared by Congress during the Civil War.
Homework assignment: Find the Declaration of War of the Civil War. You can use Google.
Prior to the Barbary War, Congress debated whether or not to declare war on the Barbary States. Congress decided that the Barbary States were no more than a collection of pirates and to declare war would dignify them with the status of sovereign states. Therefore, Congress refused to declare war and instead passed an Authorization to Use Force.
In the same Barbary War, President Thomas Jefferson stated that a declaration of war was unnecessary, whether the Barbary States were sovereign states or not, because the Barbary States had already caused a state of war to exist by attacking the United States and therefore a state of war already existed. In other words, Thomas Jefferson recognized that a Declaration of War was a diplomatic courtesy between sovereign states before the bullets started flying.
Be that as it may, Obama did not even bother to get an Authorization of War in the case of Libya.
I suggest you revise and extend your comments to include the historical context of the clause. It will make your piece much better ... and it will probably change your argument, too.
I think it would have been appropriate to declare war against Afghanistan following 9/11, and I would have liked to see Bush request such a declaration from Congress.
ping!
I'm curious what other posters think: Does the declaration of war have to be signed by the President or, could he veto it and require a two-thirds majority?
“A formal declaration of war is the only way to unite the nation to win a major war. Any alternative is open to divisions. It was last done in WW II and that was the last war that we won. Since then the country has been divided - Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. You want to win - pass a formal declaration of war.”
Correct. It would also have helped avoid the problems of members of congress criticizing the President for getting into the war.
I agree with most of your post. Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that the author of original article is in error when stating that a U.S. Declaration of War must be based on an overt act of war by another nation. While it might be unwise to do otherwise in most cases, I see no legal or Constitutional requirement for it.
However, it is incorrect to state that there was no Declaration of War against the Barbary pirates. A Declaration of War against the Bey of Tripoli was passed on February 6, 1802.
Ron Paul voted yes for an undeclared war.
To get those that attacked us on 9-11-2001.
Simply because your post mentioned the Barbary Pirates and it is educational for everybody else to see how the Founding Fathers interpreted the Constitution that they themselves drafted and ratified.
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.