# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Where in the Constitution does it say you can't go to war without a declaration?

## Andrew Ryan

Well I was watching one of the Republican debates on Youtube and Chris Matthews asked the question if the president needs the approval of congress in order to take military action against Nuclear facilities in Iran. So Romney said he would "sit down with his attorneys" . Then of course RP was given a chance to answer and said "Why don't we just open up the constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war". So then I started wondering...where exactly in the constitution does it say that there must be a declaration of war in order to go to war?

----------


## robertwerden

Really? are you asking for the article number?
Article one section eight.

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

you might as well ask also where does it say the president can send us to war all on his or her own as well...

----------


## Matt Collins

Well it doesn't say that, but it is implied because it says in Art 1 Sec 8 that "_The Congress shall have power to...declare war_". Since the federal government doesn't have any power the States did not give it via the Constitution, then the federal government cannot go to war without Congress declaring it.

----------


## Andrew Ryan

> Well it doesn't say that, but it is implied because it says in Art 1 Sec 8 that "_The Congress shall have power to...declare war_". Since the federal government doesn't have any power the States did not give it via the Constitution, then the federal government cannot go to war without Congress declaring it.


Ahh alright thank you

----------


## 10thAmendment

> Well it doesn't say that, but it is implied because it says in Art 1 Sec 8 that "_The Congress shall have power to...declare war_". Since the federal government doesn't have any power the States did not give it via the Constitution, then the federal government cannot go to war without Congress declaring it.


I agree.

I am shocked that Romney had to consult with his lawyers concerning what the Constitution says about declaring war.  He should know better and probably does.  As other posters have indicated, Article I, Sec. 8 gives government power to declare war uniquely to Congress.

Also, the idea that the Constitution requires Congress to formally declare a war is a myth.  Congress "formally" declared war on Iraq, for example, simply by providing Bush with the funds that he requested to invade Iraq; no funds, no declaration, no war.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Constitution 2 X 4 between the eyes: *Where does it say that they can?*

----------


## robert4rp08

> Constitution 2 X 4 between the eyes: *Where does it say that they can?*


Unfortunately most politicians these days think that anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is free game.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Unfortunately most politicians these days think that anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is free game.


 And the voters just keep on electing the ass holes.  DUH!!!

----------


## Dequeant

Something you should learn is that you cannot rely on others to tell you what your rights are.  Read the constitution for yourself, it take about 10 minutes and it's intentionally written in a language we can all understand.  Our founding fathers would have had it no other way.

----------


## Pericles

> Well it doesn't say that, but it is implied because it says in Art 1 Sec 8 that "_The Congress shall have power to...declare war_". Since the federal government doesn't have any power the States did not give it via the Constitution, then the federal government cannot go to war without Congress declaring it.


Like the Louisiana purchase deal? Or was that where it all started to go wrong?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Article 1, section 10 says "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded _or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay_".

That last bit could be twisted to mean that war doesn't have to be declared, but that's not really a sound interpretation.  (doesn't stop neocons from using it, though  )

----------


## drew1503

Exactly it says the Congress has the power to declare war, not the Executive nor the Legislative.

----------


## SWATH

> Exactly it says the Congress has the power to declare war, not the Executive nor the Legislative.


Congress is the legislative.  Only congress, i.e. house and senate can declare war.  The executive i.e. the president, does not have the authority to declare war.

*James Madison:*“. . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”  (1793.)


“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it.  It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.”  (Letter to Jefferson, c. 1798.)*Thomas Jefferson:*“We have already given in example one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body. . . .”  (Letter to Madison, 1789.)


“Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided.” (Message to Congress, 1805.)*George Washington:*  “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” (1793.)*James Wilson:*
 “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. . . .”  (To the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, 1787.)

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of “strict construction” was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.*
http://www.answers.com/topic/amendme...s-constitution

----------


## unreconstructed1

> Unfortunately most politicians these days think that anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is free game.


not expressly prohibited? in this day and age ANYTHING is free game.
just think "patriot act", and "common sense" gun rights infringements...

----------


## dannno

> constitution 2 x 4 between the eyes: *where does it say that they can?*


***thwack***

----------


## foofighter20x

It says so right here:




> *No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law*; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.


If war wasn't declared in accordance with the law, then how do you expect to fund it?

----------


## RonPaulNewbee

"Ill try da find ya some and Ill bring 'em to ya." - Palin

----------


## Soldier of Liberty

Now my ammendment to this question would be, what is the difference between a "Resolution" (to go to war)  and "Declaration" (of War).....................If my understanding is correct, then it is clear that Congressional Resolution doesn't have to be signed on to by all the members of congress, and in fact a vote in favor of a resolution can be "bought."   A Resolution is nothing more than the philosophical/rhetorical opinion of all like minded members, and not indicative of the minority opinion.  


If my understanding of declaring war is correct, it is to say who you are going to war with, to state your goals in said war, and once those goals are achieved to get out. Am I right?


SOL

----------


## Truth Warrior

> ***thwack***


 *Ya often just gotta get their attention first. *

----------


## Pericles

> Now my ammendment to this question would be, what is the difference between a "Resolution" (to go to war)  and "Declaration" (of War).....................If my understanding is correct, then it is clear that Congressional Resolution doesn't have to be signed on to by all the members of congress, and in fact a vote in favor of a resolution can be "bought."   A Resolution is nothing more than the philosophical/rhetorical opinion of all like minded members, and not indicative of the minority opinion.  
> 
> 
> If my understanding of declaring war is correct, it is to say who you are going to war with, to state your goals in said war, and once those goals are achieved to get out. Am I right?
> 
> 
> SOL


War is a legal status between governments.  Going the legal route specifies beligerents, gives other governments the opportunity to declare alliance or neutrality, provides for the return or interment of enemy aliens, with the rights of all parties defined, and you have an interface with which to deal in order to reach a settlement and end the state of war.

You really can't declare war against an individual or some organization, because the necessary framework to deal with the opponent is not there. Typically, those folks don't follow the rules of war, so the end up being categorized as spies and partisans, and are treated as such.

----------


## Fox McCloud

The President can act in what I call an "aggressive-defensive action" if the country's protection is in immediate danger...for example, if there's a fleet of planes heading towards DS and it's quite clear they have a hostile intent, then the President doesn't need to a Declaration of War just to shoot down that particular nation's aircraft.

That said, this power doesn't go beyond that.

----------


## revolutionist

What about the part that says the president is commander in chief?  Doesn't that mean he can do whatever he wants with the army, congress just has to fund it?

Just playing devil's advocate.

----------


## sratiug

> I agree.
> 
> I am shocked that Romney had to consult with his lawyers concerning what the Constitution says about declaring war.  He should know better and probably does.  As other posters have indicated, Article I, Sec. 8 gives government power to declare war uniquely to Congress.
> 
> *Also, the idea that the Constitution requires Congress to formally declare a war is a myth.  Congress "formally" declared war on Iraq, for example, simply by providing Bush with the funds that he requested to invade Iraq; no funds, no declaration, no war.*


Bull$#@!.

----------


## sratiug

> What about the part that says the president is commander in chief?  Doesn't that mean he can do whatever he wants with the army, congress just has to fund it?
> 
> Just playing devil's advocate.


No.  It takes the President's signature PLUS 2/3 of the Senate voting just to make a treaty.  Congress must declare war.  The National Guard cannot be called up by Congress except for 3 specific reasons, none of which were met for Iraq, so all National Guard deployments there are still as illegal as they were when W was in the Texas guard avoiding Vietnam.

----------


## NMCB3

The Constitution means anything the State lawyers are successful in arguing it means. That is the "original intent" of the document. To give central government absolute power *over time.* I say scrap the whole document except the Bill of Rights which thanks to the Anti-Federalists was reluctantly added later, and is the only thing good about the Constitution.

----------


## ChickenHawk

> Congress is the legislative.  Only congress, i.e. house and senate can declare war.  The executive i.e. the president, does not have the authority to declare war.
> 
> *James Madison:*. . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.  (1793.)
> 
> 
> The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it.  It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.  (Letter to Jefferson, c. 1798.)*Thomas Jefferson:*We have already given in example one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body. . . .  (Letter to Madison, 1789.)
> 
> 
> Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided. (Message to Congress, 1805.)*George Washington:*  The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. (1793.)*James Wilson:*
>  This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. . . .  (To the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, 1787.)


It is worth noting that both Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went to war without a formal "declaration". They simply requested and were given "authorization" of Congress.

With the Iraq war there was essentially a declaration. The word "declaration" was not used but the outcome would be the same if they had. In the quotes above even Jefferson and Washington use the terms "declaration" and "authorized" (or "authority") to mean the same thing.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is worth noting that both Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went to war without a formal "declaration". They simply requested and were given "authorization" of Congress.


You forgot to check your history books before you wrote this.  The war of 1812 WAS declared.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...efid=761571913
"War of 1812, conflict between the United States and Britain that began in 1812 and lasted until early 1815. *President James Madison requested a declaration of war to protect American ships on the high seas and to stop the British from impressing or seizing U.S. sailors.* U.S. ships were being stopped and searched by both Great Britain and France, who were fighting each other in Europe. President Madison also wanted to prevent Britain from forming alliances with Native Americans on the American frontier. His decision was influenced by Americans in the West and South, who hoped to expand the United States by seizing control of both Canada and Florida. Critics called the War of 1812 Mr. Madisons War, but others saw it as a second war of independence, an opportunity for Americans to defend their freedom and honor in the face of European disrespect. Neither Britain nor the United States was particularly well prepared to fight this war, and the conflict eventually ended in a stalemate."

You* FAIL* today's history lesson, chickenhawk.

----------


## ChickenHawk

> You forgot to check your history books before you wrote this.  The war of 1812 WAS declared.


You would be correct if I was talking about the war of 1812, but I wasn't.

----------


## ChickenHawk

Let's try a different history lesson. Thomas Jefferson fought the first Barbary war starting in 1801. James Madison fought the Second Barbary War in 1815. Neither war was officially declared. Also, I didn't mention the Quasi-War with France fought by President John Adams. All three of these wars were fought by founding fathers without a formal "declaration".

----------


## Pericles

> Let's try a different history lesson. Thomas Jefferson fought the first Barbary war starting in 1801. James Madison fought the Second Barbary War in 1815. Neither war was officially declared. Also, I didn't mention the Quasi-War with France fought by President John Adams. All three of these wars were fought by founding fathers without a formal "declaration".


Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner!

Google "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Failed that one too, my friend
http://www.answers.com/topic/barbary-wars
*"Although annual payments were maintained to the other Barbary states, Algiers continued to seize American merchantmen such as the Mary Ann, for which $18,000 was paid, and to threaten others such as the Allegheny, for which increased payments were demanded and secured. As a result, the United States declared war on Algiers in 1815."

*
These wars are actually very good examples of how to properly fight a "war on terror", and has always worked when I get into debates with war hawks.

----------


## ChickenHawk

> Failed that one too, my friend
> http://www.answers.com/topic/barbary-wars
> *"Although annual payments were maintained to the other Barbary states, Algiers continued to seize American merchantmen such as the Mary Ann, for which $18,000 was paid, and to threaten others such as the Allegheny, for which increased payments were demanded and secured. As a result, the United States declared war on Algiers in 1815."
> 
> *
> These wars are actually very good examples of how to properly fight a "war on terror", and has always worked when I get into debates with war hawks.


It's possible that there was a formal declaration in the case of the second Barbary war but there most certainly was not in the other two wars I mentioned. Keep in mind very few people consider  "authorization" for war to be any different than a "declaration" (because there is no difference) so the words are often interchanged.

----------


## ChickenHawk

Okay, I knew I was right. There was no formal declaration of war against Algiers. It was only an authorization of military force. The Congress has only issued a formal declaration of war 5 times. That article uses the word "declare" to refer to the act of authorization. There is no difference between the two and it is a ridiculous argument in my opinion. 

The Constitution gives Congress the Power the declare war and makes the President the commander in chief. The reason for this is so that neither on can take the country to war without authorization of the other. In the case of the Iraq war both Congress and the President support the war so there is no Constitutional problem. Congress could have just as easily put the word "declare" in the Iraq war resolution and it would not have changed anything.

----------


## noxagol

> Okay, I knew I was right. There was no formal declaration of war against Algiers. It was only an authorization of military force. The Congress has only issued a formal declaration of war 5 times. That article uses the word "declare" to refer to the act of authorization. There is no difference between the two and it is a ridiculous argument in my opinion. 
> 
> The Constitution gives Congress the Power the declare war and makes the President the commander in chief. The reason for this is so that neither on can take the country to war without authorization of the other. In the case of the Iraq war both Congress and the President support the war so there is no Constitutional problem. Congress could have just as easily put the word "declare" in the Iraq war resolution and it would not have changed anything.


No, the Iraq war resolution was not Congress saying, OK. It was Congress passing the responsibility to the president, which they cannot do. Ron Paul presented a bill to declare war officially and was laughed at for doing so. If they wanted to declare war, Dr. Paul gave them the chance to do so. No, what you saw was a cop out.

----------


## Pericles

> Failed that one too, my friend
> http://www.answers.com/topic/barbary-wars
> *"Although annual payments were maintained to the other Barbary states, Algiers continued to seize American merchantmen such as the Mary Ann, for which $18,000 was paid, and to threaten others such as the Allegheny, for which increased payments were demanded and secured. As a result, the United States declared war on Algiers in 1815."
> 
> *
> These wars are actually very good examples of how to properly fight a "war on terror", and has always worked when I get into debates with war hawks.


Correct, the US did authorize force on Algiers on March 3, 1815, but Commodore Decatur also conducted attacks on Tunis and Tripoli, forcing their rulers to sign treaties with the US - entities that were not covered by the declaration of war with Algiers.

Is this a declaration of war? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/qw04.asp

----------


## sratiug

> It's possible that there was a formal declaration in the case of the second Barbary war but there most certainly was not in the other two wars I mentioned. Keep in mind very few people consider  "authorization" for war to be any different than a "declaration" (because there is no difference) so the words are often interchanged.


So you are saying this didn't happen?




> According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation." This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.


Regardless, your arguments are completely without basis.  Every nation at the time of our founding new what a declaration of war was, and they still know today.   It's as if you are saying the federal reserve act is legal because central banks were created in the past.

----------


## ChickenHawk

I fail to see how Congress "authorizing" war is not the same thing as a declaration. This whole argument is about words used not actions taken. What difference would it have made if Congress had "declared" war on Iraq? That is whet they did essentially. The laughed at Ron because why declare war when they already did. Congress still has the full power to prevent a President from going to war and the President still has the power to stop Congress from going to war. I'm not the least bit worried about this at all. Besides what difference does it make what the Constitution says if they just ignore it anyway. Better to elect people with good judgment that won't abuse their power in the first place.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I fail to see how Congress "authorizing" war is not the same thing as a declaration. This whole argument is about words used not actions taken. What difference would it have made if Congress had "declared" war on Iraq? That is whet they did essentially. The laughed at Ron because why declare war when they already did. Congress still has the full power to prevent a President from going to war and the President still has the power to stop Congress from going to war. I'm not the least bit worried about this at all. Besides what difference does it make what the Constitution says if they just ignore it anyway. Better to elect people with good judgment that won't abuse their power in the first place.


As I understand it, a declaration puts specific parameters on the conflict (who is the "enemy", etc), and an "authorization" gives the pres money to fight a general war against whoever or whatever the pres desires (which allows a conflict to be spread to other theatres and become much more expensive).

Perhaps we have a legal expert here who can better explain it?

----------


## AisA1787

> As I understand it, a declaration puts specific parameters on the conflict (who is the "enemy", etc), and an "authorization" gives the pres money to fight a general war against whoever or whatever the pres desires (which allows a conflict to be spread to other theatres and become much more expensive).
> 
> Perhaps we have a legal expert here who can better explain it?


I didn't read this whole thread, but yes that's basically the difference.  The REASON they did it is so they could turn around if the war became unpopular and blame it on Bush -- "Oh, this is Bush's war, HE's the one who started it and he's the bad guy."

----------


## Pericles

> As I understand it, a declaration puts specific parameters on the conflict (who is the "enemy", etc), and an "authorization" gives the pres money to fight a general war against whoever or whatever the pres desires (which allows a conflict to be spread to other theatres and become much more expensive).
> 
> Perhaps we have a legal expert here who can better explain it?


Looking at the link I provided earlier may help answer your question.

Look at:

An Act Further to Protect the Commerce of the United States

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels which are, or which shall be employed in the service of the United States, to subdue, seize and take any armed French vessel, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere, on the high seas, and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns and appurtenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, being French property, shall be brought within some port of the United States, and shall be duly proceeded against and condemned as forfeited; and shall accrue and be distributed, as by law is or shall be provided respecting the captures which shall be made by the public armed vessels of the United States.

and so forth....

Never is the phrase "declaration of war" used, not even the word "war". Note the repeated use of the word "authorized", and nowhere in the act is found an appropriation of money. It is clear that Congress is giving the President war power - granting letters of marque as at the time, the US Navy was not yet constructed....

The only "Declarations of War" that I can find are Great Britain 1812, Mexico 1846, Spain 1898, Germany 1917, Japan and then Germany, Italy 1941. There was no declaration of war against the Confederacy (of course how does one declare war against a country that one claims does not exist), which meant that was one large defensive operation that lasted about 4 years and cost over 360,000 men (Union).

Other military actions have occurred because either Congress "authorized" them - which would be consistent with original intent, or appropriated money for the operation.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

BTW,

Can anyone explain why the history of the declaration of war is so inconsistent?  Seems like historical figures contradict themselves on this issue quite a bit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

bump for curiosity.

----------


## Pericles

I think part of the answer is in my previous post - war is a type of diplomatic relationship between states. If you don't recognize a state, you can't declare war. This harks back to a time of rules applied to society, gentlemen, and the formal way in which "civilized" people interacted with each other. If one was to fight another gentleman, the rules of the code duello came into play. Same with conduct between countries.

Another line of reasoning is that there may be cases of armed conflict short of all out war, and what would be the requirement - an authorization from Congress to the President seems to be the accepted solution. For defensive measures, the President may take initial action, subject to approval and funding for operations by the Congress.

I think we can agree that the intention was that offensive military action by the United States should be the result of an expression of such a will by the Congress. As to whether that expression takes the form of authorization or declaration will depend on objectives and other circumstances. The restrict that only Congress may declare war is a recognition of a time in which going to war was to place the country in peril, of which national survival was at risk, and thus that decision should not be made by the President alone.

----------


## sratiug

> I think part of the answer is in my previous post - war is a type of diplomatic relationship between states. If you don't recognize a state, you can't declare war. This harks back to a time of rules applied to society, gentlemen, and the formal way in which "civilized" people interacted with each other. If one was to fight another gentleman, the rules of the code duello came into play. Same with conduct between countries.
> 
> Another line of reasoning is that there may be cases of armed conflict short of all out war, and what would be the requirement - an authorization from Congress to the President seems to be the accepted solution. For defensive measures, the President may take initial action, subject to approval and funding for operations by the Congress.
> 
> I think we can agree that the intention was that offensive military action by the United States should be the result of an expression of such a will by the Congress. As to whether that expression takes the form of authorization or declaration will depend on objectives and other circumstances. *The restrict that only Congress may declare war is a recognition of a time in which going to war was to place the country in peril, of which national survival was at risk, and thus that decision should not be made by the President alone.*


The ignorance of the bolded part of that statement is astounding, considering the scant few minutes most of us will have to live after we push Putin over the line.  And in case you are not paying attention.  He is VERY PISSED.

----------


## Pericles

> The ignorance of the bolded part of that statement is astounding, considering the scant few minutes most of us will have to live after we push Putin over the line.  And in case you are not paying attention.  He is VERY PISSED.


Note that I said offensive military action - defense of a state or collective defense is enshrined in the Constitution.

The original question was pertaining to a declaration of war, not when can we start shooting.

----------


## zara oly

> I fail to see how Congress "authorizing" war is not the same thing as a declaration. This whole argument is about words used not actions taken. What difference would it have made if Congress had "declared" war on Iraq? That is whet they did essentially. The laughed at Ron because why declare war when they already did. Congress still has the full power to prevent a President from going to war and the President still has the power to stop Congress from going to war. I'm not the least bit worried about this at all. Besides what difference does it make what the Constitution says if they just ignore it anyway. Better to elect people with good judgment that won't abuse their power in the first place.



I was listening to your argument for a while and see what neoconservative drubble you would come up with, but you obviously haven't thought out your lust for war.  Like every neocon, history is twisted and words are dumbed down.

Congress has the power to declare war, not the President.  Now, if you wanted to be like the neocon lawyers around Cheney and Bush, you would have had something interesting to say about the president's power.  According to theses sycophants to power, congress's declaration of war is just congress declaring to the world that hostilities had begun between America and some other enemy.  Yet, once again but this type of argument only leads away from the true purpose of the Constitution - a limited gov't.

----------


## sratiug

> Note that I said offensive military action - defense of a state or collective defense is enshrined in the Constitution.
> 
> The original question was pertaining to a declaration of war, not when can we start shooting.


You miss my point, as you apparently miss the point of congressional power over declaration of war.  When we "authorize" incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq, South Ossetia, and Syria, and pretend they are not wars, we are setting ourselves up for our complete destruction by nuclear annihilation from the thousands of nuclear warheads pointed in our direction from Russian soil.  Russia has many nuclear subs, the largest supersonic nuclear bombers and the most advanced nuclear missiles on the planet.  Arrogance and stupidity is more likely at this point to cause our complete destruction than ever before in history imho.

----------


## torchbearer

> Like the Louisiana purchase deal? Or was that where it all started to go wrong?


The federal government can enter into treaties... and the land was purchased through treaty.

----------


## Pericles

> You miss my point, as you apparently miss the point of congressional power over declaration of war.  When we "authorize" incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq, South Ossetia, and Syria, and pretend they are not wars, we are setting ourselves up for our complete destruction by nuclear annihilation from the thousands of nuclear warheads pointed in our direction from Russian soil.  Russia has many nuclear subs, the largest supersonic nuclear bombers and the most advanced nuclear missiles on the planet.  Arrogance and stupidity is more likely at this point to cause our complete destruction than ever before in history imho.


I don't think I missed it. No Constitution, law, rule, or regulation can stop mass stupidity. You can force a person to get a signoff from somewhere else, but when everybody goes along, it takes somebody with both the ability and willingness to say no. When almost everybody in Washington ignores the Constitution, it can't protect us, which leaves us with that last and ultimate check on government power.

----------


## Pericles

> The federal government can enter into treaties... and the land was purchased through treaty.


True, but Jefferson had concerns that he had exceeded his authority, and today's crowd are not so encumbered....

----------


## Matt Collins

This thread during my research gave me a headache.

----------


## Scofield

From my understanding, Congress okay'd Jefferson's use of Military force.

Congress never okay'd the use of Military force for Iraq, but they instead left that decision up to Bush.  

They delegated their power to the President, as they told him "if you think we need to go to war, you decide."  Whereas for Jefferson, they knew it would be a small battle, and there wouldn't be a need for a full blown war, so they said "sure, you can go to battle," as an actual Declaration of War would have been overkill (no pun intended).

There is a difference between "sure, you can go to war," and "uh, it's up to you boss.  Let us know."

----------


## JS4Pat

> No, the Iraq war resolution was not Congress saying, OK. It was Congress passing the responsibility to the president, which they cannot do. Ron Paul presented a bill to declare war officially and was laughed at for doing so. If they wanted to declare war, Dr. Paul gave them the chance to do so. No, what you saw was a cop out.


BINGO! 

That is the big problem with the Iraq war. Congress TRANSFERRED its constitutional duty to another branch of government.

This is why you hear all the weasels now claiming they are against the Iraq War even though they voted for the bogus "Resolution".  

If each and every congressman were on record with an up or down vote on whether or not The USA should Declare War on Iraq - there would be no ambiguity on this subject. The argument would be over whether or not going to War was the right decision - not who can claim more or less responsibility for it.

----------

