Question -- war

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, the President is allowed constitutionally to go to war without Congressional approval in a time of emergency.

To say that Iraq was an emergency is a joke, only the insane would call it a emergency. Bush did not uphold the Constitution when he went into Iraq.

I do not believe there is a time limit. Congress can come back and cut funding, impeach etc. if they thought it was unconstitutional/not an emergency.... which should have happened.

Ok. These questions did not have to do with Iraq. More of a general question.

 

[atilla]

7 hours and 23 minutes, or until the damn commies surrender. whichever comes first.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think anyone would argue against using the military to defend the United States against an invasion of our borders.

I know, RPF. I agree.

I'm just trying to find out the de facto constitutional answer. Whether the president can do this. I think he can. But, as I recall, he can only do this so long, without congressional approval.

 

[LibertyEagle]

He has no authority to "retaliate" against an attack. As Commander-in-Chief, I think it is understood that he may use the military defensively, but the Constitution does not allow him to make attacks without a declaration of war.

Does he have the authority to "defend", if we are attacked?

 

[Liberty Star]

As long we got the money and tolerence.


At $2 Billion per week, we could afford this war for even a decade without any risk of us going bankrupt.

Only 30% of Iraqis have been killed or orphaned so far, so there is room in that area too. There are 70% people that have not lost any family member there still despite all the gloom n doom in MSM about the war.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Surely, there is a constitutional answer to this question.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

I know, RPF. I agree.

I'm just trying to find out the de facto constitutional answer. Whether the president can do this. I think he can. But, as I recall, he can only do this so long, without congressional approval.

So here are the options:

1. Let the Chinese take over
2. Defend America

Is this a legitimate question? Is Congress going to meet and say, Mr. President we are not funding a war to defend America's borders. We welcome our new Chinese leaders!

 

[Redmenace]

In case of an unprovoked attack, the Executive Branch has the authority to act defensively in order to repel that attack. In order to go on the offensive it must then ask congress for a deceleration of war.

 

[Liberty Star]

Surely, there is a constitutional answer to this question.

In times of high fear, Constitution matters less and trust in the President matters more.

You're trying to pose a question that promotes free thinking and without injecting any fear from all the great looiming threats. That's way too libertarian and not very patriotic ... trust the President's judgment

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

http://bannedforever.ytmnd.com/

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[yongrel]

I know for a fact we have some Constitutional Lawyers on here. I'm sure we'll get an answer from one sooner or later.

 

[freelance]

He has no authority to "retaliate" against an attack. As Commander-in-Chief, I think it is understood that he may use the military defensively, but the Constitution does not allow him to make attacks without a declaration of war.

I don't think I'd call that retaliatory. I'd call it defensive if the Chinese attacked us within our boundaries.

 

[freelance]

Damn, LE. That's a hard one, but one we need to find out about--EXACTLY!

 

[CodeMonkey]

Does he have the authority to "defend", if we are attacked?

Actually I just looked it over and the Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

However, it does not say for the Army and/or Navy. These do not need to be "called forth"; they are pretty much always primed and ready.

As Commander-in-Chief of the military he would be able to command them to defend the borders... this doesn't require a declaration of war because it is not an act of war.

 

[Electrostatic]

Presidential Powers concerning war:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

Congressional Powers concerning war:

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

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

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; "

 

[CodeMonkey]

Presidential Powers concerning war:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

The bolded part is specific to the state militias, as they are not normally in service to the Federal government. The US Army and Navy are always in service to the US government, so the president is always their commander in chief.

 

[idrake]

For sake of an example, how about the Chinese military coming up through the Mexican border and invading our country, killing and maiming everyone in their way.

How's that?

I don't think the Constitution specifically states a duration. I believe the intention was the next convening of congress though.

 

[constituent]

If we were attacked, does the president have the constitutional authority to retaliate? If he does, how long can it continue (constitutionally) without congressional approval? Three months? Six months?

i think if the president wants to "retaliate" on my behalf he can do it himself for just as long as he'd like.

 

[constituent]

For sake of an example, how about the Chinese military coming up through the Mexican border and invading our country, killing and maiming everyone in their way.

How's that?

they'd never get through texas.


...better yet,

they'd better start in a wimpy state like California or something.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Damn, LE. That's a hard one, but one we need to find out about--EXACTLY!

Yes. I thought so too. Someone on a message board was concerned because they figured Paul would not defend our country, if it was attacked, until after Congress convened and declared war.

My understanding was that he could, but could only do so for x long, without Congressional approval. I wasn't sure though, so I thought I would ask.

It seems that no one as yet has the answer.