VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12[3]4 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:54:00 03/14/03 Fri
Author: Arkady
Author Host/IP: cpe-gan-68-101-88-174-cmcpe.ncf.coxexpress.com / 68.101.88.174
Subject: Re: Is the UN a bad idea? You decide
In reply to: Richard 's message, "Re: Is the UN a bad idea? You decide" on 06:50:09 03/14/03 Fri

I just don't see how that law changes the basic Constitutional dilemma:

1) Under the Constitution, the power to declare war belongs to Congress.

2) Congress has not declared war.

3) We are about to go to war.

None of those three facts are in question. So, how do you get around the obvious contradiction?

In other cases, the situation was such that the traditional term "war" hardly seemed appropriate. We were either intervening in ongoing conflicts, or we were only using limited force for a purpose far short of all-out victory (targeted strikes to destroy weapons or stop a campaign of ethnic cleansing, or an attempt to push an army back out of a territory it had invaded, or actions against a force that was not representing an internationally-recognized head of state, etc.) One can, of course, claim that these shouldn't have let the presidents get around the general rule about who decides whether to go to war, but at least a straight-faced argument can be made in the other direction -- that this was not at all the sort of situation the founders were envisioning when they gave that power to Congress, not to the President, so the rule shouldn't apply.

In this case, though, this is EXACTLY the kind of stituation the founders must have been thinking about. It's a premeditated act of all-out invasion. This isn't a police action. It's not a targeted strike. It's not peacekeeping. It's a war. You can't get much more "war-like" than what we're planning. So, if we have a war, and Congress hasn't declared war, then where does the Constitution fit in?

So, what, exactly, do you think that Constitutional provision does, if it doesn't even limit the use of force we're contemplating? Are there ANY circumstances under which you think a President would need a declaration of war?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:



Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.