Presidential War Powers

[Devil505]

My problem with the Bush administration calling our battle with Islamic criminals a "WAR" is that a war confers very specific, powerful & meant to be temporary Constitutional War Powers upon the President that do not exist in "Normal" peacetime.
By calling our fight against terrorists a WAR, it makes these War Powers all but permanent, since our WAR on terrorists is like our WAR on drugs...or our WAR on poverty & will be going on forever.

Presidential war powers were meant to be short term, emergency powers & we need to stop calling things Wars unless the Congress DECLARES a state of war.

 

[celticlord]

Bully for you. And?

 

[Devil505]

Bully for you. And?

Just a thought for anyone who wants to discuss it.

 

[danarhea]

My problem with the Bush administration calling our battle with Islamic criminals a "WAR" is that a war confers very specific, powerful & meant to be temporary Constitutional War Powers upon the President that do not exist in "Normal" peacetime.
By calling our fight against terrorists a WAR, it makes these War Powers all but permanent, since our WAR on terrorists is like our WAR on drugs...or our WAR on poverty & will be going on forever.

Presidential war powers were meant to be short term, emergency powers & we need to stop calling things Wars unless the Congress DECLARES a state of war.

Bush did not do anything different than what President Johnson did, or what Truman before him did, and after Nixon left office, Congress relinquished its responsibility in an unconstitutional manner. Here is what the Constitution says about declaring war:

Article I, Sec. 9 of the US Constitution, concerning powers of Congress:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Now, I don't have a problem with Congress giving up their war power to the executive branch. I have a problem with Congress doing it in an unconstitutional manner. If they want to give the President the power to unilaterally go to war, then it can only be done through a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Devil505]

Bush did not do anything different than what President Johnson did, or what Truman before him did,

I don't remember any other President in U.S. history making state sponsored torture part of our normal way of dealing with ANY prisoners so you're wrong right off the bat.

and after Nixon left office, Congress relinquished its responsibility in an unconstitutional manner. Here is what the Constitution says about declaring war:

Article I, Sec. 9 of the US Constitution, concerning powers of Congress:

I agree & Congress needs to take back that power to avoid future war criminals like Bush destroying what make America better than other countries.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Well its a good thing Obama ended all wars in favor of "overseas contingency operations" to prevent "man caused disasters"!


:roll:

 

[Tucker Case]

Well its a good thing Obama ended all wars in favor of "overseas contingency operations" to prevent "man caused disasters"!


:roll:

Man, every time I hear those terms I am dumbfounded at how stupid they are.

Soon terrorists will be called "disagreeable butterflies" in order to make the transition complete.

 

[danarhea]

I don't remember any other President in U.S. history making state sponsored torture part of our normal way of dealing with ANY prisoners so you're wrong right off the bat.


I agree & Congress needs to take back that power to avoid future war criminals like Bush destroying what make America better than other countries.

That was not your question. Your question in your original post had to do with war powers, which I answered correctly. No need for you to change the subject because you didn't like the answer.

 

[Devil505]

That was not your question. Your question in your original post had to do with war powers, which I answered correctly. No need for you to change the subject because you didn't like the answer.

What question did I ask?

 

[Dayton3]

Declaring war is an archaic concept and is probably best ignored today.

The founders put it in and made it a Congressional power because 250 years ago, the main things wars were seen as being good for were for kings to make a glorious name for themselves (this was common in Europe).

They never expected that U.S. presidents would have to order military actions against other nations routinely that fall well short of all out wars of national survival.

At any rate, there have only been two wars worldwide that have actually been declared since WWII. So it is an archaic concept that should not hinder a Presidents freedom of action regardless of what the constitution says.

 

[Devil505]

Declaring war is an archaic concept and is probably best ignored today.

The founders put it in and made it a Congressional power because 250 years ago, the main things wars were seen as being good for were for kings to make a glorious name for themselves (this was common in Europe).

They never expected that U.S. presidents would have to order military actions against other nations routinely that fall well short of all out wars of national survival.

At any rate, there have only been two wars worldwide that have actually been declared since WWII. So it is an archaic concept that should not hinder a Presidents freedom of action regardless of what the constitution says.

That post must set a record for the most innacurate, meaningless post on the forum!!...Congrats!!

 

[Dayton3]

That post must set a record for the most innacurate, meaningless post on the forum!!...Congrats!!

You haven't even specified what was inaccurate.

 

[Devil505]

At any rate, there have only been two wars worldwide that have actually been declared since WWII.

Name these 2 declared wars since WWII please??

 

[Dayton3]

Name these 2 declared wars since WWII please??

IIRC, the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War (October War), both conflicts between Israel and her neighbors were declared by all or some of the parties involved.

 

[Devil505]

IIRC, the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War (October War), both conflicts between Israel and her neighbors were declared by all or some of the parties involved.

What does Israel have to do with the topic which is U.S. Presidential War Powers???

 

[Dayton3]

What does Israel have to do with the topic which is U.S. Presidential War Powers???

My point is that "declaring war" is an archaic and VERY SELDOM USED concept WORLDWIDE.

Basically, no one "declares war" anymore.

If the concept has become meaningless in the world the U.S. exists in, then its usefulness as a part of the constitution is questionable.

Just like the part of the Bill of Rights that gives someone the right to a federal jury trial in civil cases of more than 25 dollars.

 

[Devil505]

My point is that "declaring war" is an archaic and VERY SELDOM USED concept WORLDWIDE.

Basically, no one "declares war" anymore.

If the concept has become meaningless in the world the U.S. exists in, then its usefulness as a part of the constitution is questionable.

Just like the part of the Bill of Rights that gives someone the right to a federal jury trial in civil cases of more than 25 dollars.

What other countries do has NO relationship with what WE do in re OUR Constitution. Ridiculous argument.

 

[Dayton3]

What other countries do has NO relationship with what WE do in re OUR Constitution. Ridiculous argument.

IIRC, more than one Supreme Court Justice (Ginsburg for example) has argued the exact opposite.

Anyway, the U.S. does not exist in a vacuum

 

[Devil505]

IIRC, more than one Supreme Court Justice (Ginsburg for example) has argued the exact opposite.

Anyway, the U.S. does not exist in a vacuum

Do you have a link that shows any Supreme Court Justice advocating that our Constitution should be changed & bound by policies of other countries?

 

[danarhea]

Declaring war is an archaic concept and is probably best ignored today.

The founders put it in and made it a Congressional power because 250 years ago, the main things wars were seen as being good for were for kings to make a glorious name for themselves (this was common in Europe).

They never expected that U.S. presidents would have to order military actions against other nations routinely that fall well short of all out wars of national survival.

At any rate, there have only been two wars worldwide that have actually been declared since WWII. So it is an archaic concept that should not hinder a Presidents freedom of action regardless of what the constitution says.

If Congressional declarations of war are archaic, that can be changed. However, the only LEGAL way to change it is through a Constitutional amendment. Any other way is illegal.

 

[Dayton3]

Do you have a link that shows any Supreme Court Justice advocating that our Constitution should be changed & bound by policies of other countries?

There was somewhat of a brouha a few weeks ago when Ruth Bader Ginsburg IIRC said that the U.S. should consider the evolving standards and practices in other countries when judging U.S. laws.

Sorry, I don't have link.

 

[Devil505]

There was somewhat of a brouha a few weeks ago when Ruth Bader Ginsburg IIRC said that the U.S. should consider the evolving standards and practices in other countries when judging U.S. laws.

Sorry, I don't have link.

Well....That's hardly the same thing, is it.

 

[jallman]

Well....That's hardly the same thing, is it.

It is exactly the same thing. :roll:

 

[Zyphlin]

While I don't agree with him, his point is COMPLETELY valid and the only "worthless" post in this thread was your one liner dismissing his post because you couldn't come up with any legitimate counter to it.

He's stating that your original notion, and the constitution itself, is archaic and no longer applicable. He's highlighting not only our history, but the worlds history as well, showing that neither WE THE UNITED STATES nor Other Countries have routinely engaged in "declared war" while at the same time there have been numerous "war like" conflicts that both we and others in the world have been in.

Referencing the world is a useful tool here to help BACK UP the notion that its also the case in this country for the argument he's making, which is that "declaring war" as its known in the constitution is archaic and not useful in the modern age and thus needs to be changed.

But you know, that's an actually rather interesting and unique view point with some actual thought put into it and not just hyper partisan ranting and raving so I fully understand how you may've had trouble coming up with some kind of reasoned response to it so had to instead dismiss it insultingly without countering it in any way.

 

[rathi]

The practice of not declaring wars when engaging in large scale conflicts is dangerous and undermines the separation of powers. Spending years with our military deployed and fighting other countries abroad without declaring war needs to end.

That said, modern warfare is so fast that it is impractical to wait for congress to authorize every single military action against another country. WW2 blitzkrieg is far slower than what we could accomplish today. The war could be lost before congress finishes deliberating.

A reasonable compromise is to allow for a limited time for the president to use force without declaring war. After that time period, either congress declares war or we pull out immediately. The time limit could reasonably be probably from a week to a month.