Did the southern states have the a Constitutional right to secede in 1861?

[The_Patriot]

I personally agree that war should be declared before invading another country, but ever since Korea, that has not been the case. The "police action" excuse has gotten around it, and unfortunately become acceptable practice.

So then every war since Korea has not been a legal war.

 

[Goobieman]

According to the constitution, yes.

Fair enough.

Violent expansionism is no longer considered morally acceptable. In the post WW2 period, the amount of land that has been conquered by force is tiny compared to centuries past.

Well, OK -- but why is the end of WW2 a valid cut-off point?
Seems to me that if two states go to war and one takes land from the other as a result, it has every right to keep that land. Its been that way from the earliest points in recorded history until 1945.

 

[rathi]

So then every war since Korea has not been a legal war.

The Courts have had ample time to make such a ruling, but have unfortunately decided that is not the case. In any case, congress still provided funding willingly, so there was nobody who could challenge the concept anyway.

 

[rathi]

Well, OK -- but why is the end of WW2 a valid cut-off point?
Seems to me that if two states go to war and one takes land from the other as a result, it has every right to keep that land. Its been that way from the earliest points in recorded history until 1945.

I suspect there are two primary reasons. The first is simply the rise of nationalism. Integrating conquered territories is extremely difficult, and many empires fell in the 20th century because of such a problem. Look at Israel and the internal problems they have over the land they obtained in war. The second is rise of economic dominance as a better substitute. Why suffer the headache of ruling an area, when you can just use economic muscle to grab the natural resources and leaves the political problems to someone else?

 

[The_Patriot]

The Courts have had ample time to make such a ruling, but have unfortunately decided that is not the case. In any case, congress still provided funding willingly, so there was nobody who could challenge the concept anyway.

Appeal to authority logical fallacy.

 

[TOJ]

I still don't get why people are so hung up on this. The moment you leave the union, you become a separate nation and thus can be legally invaded and annexed by the federal government. For all practical reasons, leaving the union depends purely on your military power rather than any legal arguments. The South was defeated in battle, not in a courtroom.

Canada is a seperate nation and militarily impotent. Why hasn't the USA invaded Canada?

.

 

[rathi]

Appeal to authority logical fallacy.

It isn't a fallacy. Legality is something that is defined by courts in this country. Morality however is not, while it may be legal to invade without declaring war, it certainly isn't right.

Canada is a seperate nation and militarily impotent. Why hasn't the USA invaded Canada?

We did. It went rather badly.

 

[American]

I personally agree that war should be declared before invading another country, but ever since Korea, that has not been the case. The "police action" excuse has gotten around it, and unfortunately become acceptable practice.

Which of these "police actions" has been conducted without the approval of Congress?

 

[Slartibartfast]

It isn't a fallacy. Legality is something that is defined by courts in this country. Morality however is not, while it may be legal to invade without declaring war, it certainly isn't right.



We did. It went rather badly.

Even ignoring the role of congress and the courts, the statement is wrong. Iraq 1, Afghanistan, and Iraq 2 were declared wars.

 

[The_Patriot]

Even ignoring the role of congress and the courts, the statement is wrong. Iraq 1, Afghanistan, and Iraq 2 were declared wars.

All of the wars you specified are not declared wars. They were wars through the use of authorization of force, which is a permission slip to pass the buck of declaring war to the President. We have not had a declared war since WWII.

 

[Slartibartfast]

All of the wars you specified are not declared wars. They were wars through the use of authorization of force, which is a permission slip to pass the buck of declaring war to the President. We have not had a declared war since WWII.

 

[The_Patriot]

Great counter-argument. :roll:

 

[TOJ]

All of the wars you specified are not declared wars. They were wars through the use of authorization of force, which is a permission slip to pass the buck of declaring war to the President. We have not had a declared war since WWII.

What exactly does the USA Congress have to do to Declare War? Is there some specific steps that must be taken or some specific wording that must be used? Where is this spelled out?

.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Great counter-argument. :roll:

None is needed :shrug:

 

[Goobieman]

What exactly does the USA Congress have to do to Declare War? Is there some specific steps that must be taken or some specific wording that must be used? Where is this spelled out?

Its not - all they need to do is pass a resolutuion to that effect.

 

[Goobieman]

All of the wars you specified are not declared wars. They were wars through the use of authorization of force, which is a permission slip to pass the buck of declaring war to the President. We have not had a declared war since WWII.

Congress does not need to actually use the words "declaration of war" in order to declare war, and a state of war can exist w/o Congress declaring such.

 

[The_Patriot]

Congress does not need to actually use the words "declaration of war" in order to declare war, and a state of war can exist w/o Congress declaring such.

Actually, they do have to declare war. The only reason why resolutions for the use of force came about was part of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. A state of war can exist without Congress declaring as such, but when Germany declared war on the US in WWII Congress immediately declared war on Germany.

I will add a caveat to this statement in that the President is free to use the Navy since a naval vessel is floating US territory. Any hostilities against a naval vessel is the same as attacking US land. The Navy and, to an extent, Marines are exempt from the requirement of a declaration of war.

 

[Goobieman]

Actually, they do have to declare war. The only reason why resolutions for the use of force came about was part of the War Powers Resolution of 1973

. A state of war can exist without Congress declaring as such, but when Germany declared war on the US in WWII Congress immediately declared war on Germany.

Consider the dispartity between these two sentences.

There is a declared war, there is a state of war, and there is defacto war.
Its all war.

 

[The_Patriot]

Consider the dispartity between these two sentences.

There is a declared war, there is a state of war, and there is defacto war.
Its all war.

Yes, but under the Constitution only Congress can move the US from a state of peace to a state of war via a declaration. The president lacks this authority, which is one of the reasons why the War Powers Act of 1973 came into being. It was an attempt to reign in the President's use of the military to instigate hostile actions without informing Congress of such things like the use of the military in Nicuragua, Vietnam, Korea, etc...

 

[Goobieman]

Yes, but under the Constitution only Congress can move the US from a state of peace to a state of war via a declaration.

That is true - BUT you can be in a state of war w/o said declaration.

The president lacks this authority, which is one of the reasons why the War Powers Act of 1973 came into being.

OTOH, there is no constitutional restriction on the powers of the CinC.

 

[The_Patriot]

That is true - BUT you can be in a state of war w/o said declaration.


OTOH, there is no constitutional restriction on the powers of the CinC.

Actually, there is a restriction on the CinC in that he cannot deploy forces into a warzone without a declaration of war. He cannot deploy forces to cause a war without a declaration of war. He can, however, defend US territory against invasion. It gets really tricky when you're talking about US registered ships and aircraft since under international law they are classified as floating islands of US territory. Any attack against these floating islands is a direct attack against the sovereign territory of the US and any retaliation by the US is done in self defense.

As CinC, he can move troops to any base that he sees fits as long it doesn't provoke hostilities. Presidents had long abused this provision of the Commander in Chief power by deploying US troops into warzones or moving them into position to instigate hostilities without Congress being notified. If the House of Representatives doesn't like what the President has done, they can always not pay for it since they're the only ones authorized to spend money under their powers in Article I Section VIII.

 

[Goobieman]

Actually, there is a restriction on the CinC in that he cannot deploy forces into a warzone without a declaration of war. He cannot deploy forces to cause a war without a declaration of war.

Where does the Constitution state this?

He can, however, defend US territory against invasion.

Yes, that is true.

It gets really tricky when you're talking about US registered ships and aircraft since under international law they are classified as floating islands of US territory. Any attack against these floating islands is a direct attack against the sovereign territory of the US and any retaliation by the US is done in self defense.

That's not really that tricky - acting in self-defense is a no brainer.

 

[The_Patriot]

Where does the Constitution state this?

Amendment X states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the Commander in Chief lacks the authority to enter into a warzone or initiate hostilities without Congress's consent under Article II then Article I Section VIII Clause XI's provisions kicks in. He can only move to war when Congress says that he can. Amendment X kicks in due to their not being a delegated provision to the President to do such action.

 

[Goobieman]

Amendment X states

The 10th applies to the federal government as a whole, not just the CinC. You're arguing that the states/people have the power to order the military to make war w/o a declaration of war?

Aside from that... the Constitution specifies the President as CinC. The power given to him as such is plenary, no part of the Constitution gives any other part of the government the power to contermand an order given by him.

So, if he orders an attack on another country w/o a declaration of war, there's no constitutional devise to stop him. Thus, he does have the constitutional power to do so.

 

[The_Patriot]

The 10th applies to the federal government as a whole, not just the CinC. You're arguing that the states/people have the power to order the military to make war w/o a declaration of war?

Aside from that... the Constitution specifies the President as CinC. The power given to him as such is plenary, no part of the Constitution gives any other part of the government the power to contermand an order given by him.

So, if he orders an attack on another country w/o a declaration of war, there's no constitutional devise to stop him. Thus, he does have the constitutional power to do so.

There is a constitutional device to stop him. It's Article I Section VIII Clause XII-XIII, where Congress has the authority to raise and support the Army and Navy. This had happened before when Teddy Roosevelt was president and he sent in the US Navy into Nicuragua to support the banana companies in maintaining control and sending the US Navy on a worldwide tour without consulting Congress. Congress withheld the funds for those activities, but eventually caved when doing so would have left the US vulnerable to attack.

However, since there isn't a delegation of power in the Constitution for the President to do this then Amendment Ten takes over.

There is a reason why Article II isn't very long or have a lot of power attached to it. When they were writing the Constitution, they asked George Washington his opinion on what powers the president should have. The resulting list was intended to keep the president weak and not have anywhere near the power a monarch has. During Washington's first term in office, he tried to add more powers to the president and was rebuffed by Congress numerous times by saying that the Constitution failed to give him those powers.