This story is archived

Undeclared War and the Destruction of the Constitution »

Posted by: populist 2 years, 4 months ago

Archived 117 0 drops

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." - James Madison

Read Full Story at tenthamendmentcenter.com »

Submitted By:

populist

The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...

Who Also Submitted:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 65

Avg rating: (+7/-1 6)
KingOfTruth
June 14, 2007, 9:11 p.m.
Congress did give it's blessing to this war, ie, declare war, when on October 2, 2002 they approved the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists. A declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. In the United States there is no format required for declaration of war. The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the United States Constitution. Instead the Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to declare War," without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
texangelwings
June 14, 2007, 7:49 a.m.
Thanks Pop, great article and find.
Too bad our congressional leaders do not take more time to re-read our constitution.
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+4/-2 2)
david_nwpa
June 14, 2007, 1:05 p.m.
I disagree with the contention about using the UN as a justification for war. The United States Senate ratified the treaty that approves the UN as a governing body to mediate global conflicts. When the global conflicts become violent, as they usually do, the United States has consistently abided by the UN resolutions as per the treaty. In particular, we have sent troops to dangerous parts of the world at the behest of the UN.
Having said that, I am against being in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not so sure that if we left the region would devolve into chaos. It seems it already has and that we are merely intensifying matters. In other words, I understand the author's intentions and want the same peaceful resolution to the war, but see his arguments to that end as flawed reading of the Constitution.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
david_nwpa
June 14, 2007, 1:39 p.m.
A person is put in jail for allegedly committing a crime. Exculpatory evidence after the trial proves the person is really not guilty. The Supreme Court has ruled that innocence is not necessarily a ticket out of jail for the convicted. Sounds absurd, right?
Use the same logic here. Just because part of a treaty is seemingly unconstitutional, does not make it so. Without a ruling from the US Supreme Court saying that the wars are unconstitutional, the Presidents will continue to wage them. It so happens that GW is using both the UN and this level of argument to wage war in the same manner his predecessors have done.
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+6/-2 4)
hamy
June 14, 2007, 2:15 p.m.
Remember though, you have to take into account the fact that congress was manipulated just like the American people.
I remember rhetoric around that time where Rumsfeld and Cheney were saying that anyone who spoke out against the war were traitors and terrorists and at the time, there was nothing worse to be called.
How could you go back to your constituants and tell them that you voted against the United States of America and 9-11, and baseball and apple pie?
You couldn't.
What about the faulty intelligence? What about that farce poor Colin Powell had to tap dance around in front of Congress?
This war is blamed squarely on this administration. Although I do see how Congress could be guilty of aiding them.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
SS454
June 14, 2007, 5:12 p.m.
Looks like just about 55% of everything this REPUBLICON ADMINISTRATION has shoved up our A** is Not Legal.But what would one expect from a Gang of Toughs with a Limited Understanding of Anything,Their is a Message her Dont trust Southern REPUBLICONS!
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
spellbreak
June 14, 2007, 7:42 p.m.
This article is excellent. It is very clear and it deals with the Constitution and its interpretations by people who wrote it. Discussions of the powers of the Executive most often ignore or misstate these things.
Illiteracy is important. The Department of Education (see web site) National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) report of the 2003 survey of nearly 20,000 U.S. adults is stunning. In short, 95 per cent of high school grads could not correctly understand and answer simple questions about ordinary matters. 70 per cent of college grads couldn't and 60 per cent of grads in advanced degree programs or with such degrees couldn't do it.
It is no wonder that many, even most, people can not understand simple clear language even when it is explained.
Then there is "magical thinking" where merely changing words or symbols changes the act.(Declaring war can only be done by the Congress, but engaging in a "Police action" can be done by the executive.)
Avg rating: (+15/-7 8)
scott4261
June 14, 2007, 8:19 p.m.
Excellent article! Good on you, populist, for bringing up the Constitution. If our checks and balances finally break (and we are close), then we have lost our freedom.
If we continue down the road we are currently on, God help us all!
Avg rating: (+16/-6 10)
icono1
June 14, 2007, 9:11 p.m.
Great article. One all voters should read and study. The sad fact is that it appears that Congress is trying to side step the act of declaring war and thereby deflect criticism if things go bad. With that comes plausible denial of involvement if the war effort goes contrary to political trends which would put the Congress person's job in jeopardy. If the war effort goes well then they can soak in the limelight and thereby cut up the cake of popularity to get re-elected and stay in power.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
aceofspades1
June 14, 2007, 11:22 p.m.
most in government think Constitution is a street in DC
Avg rating: (+8/-6 2)
FreeFormThinker
June 14, 2007, 11:35 p.m.
This post seems very opinionated and lacks historical accuracy and credibility. The United States has not formally declared war on any nation since WWII. This is due to the formation of a weak international governing body that has been evolving (EG: League of Nations; UN). Declaring war ties the country into obligations for a winner and a loser (think reparations and the destruction of the German economy in the interwar period) . In addition, the international community is designed to punish any aggressor nation or leader (Kosovo).
The article has several misleading, incorrect or just illogical statements. For example: "It is logical to assume that they never would have dreamed of a President with such powers..." It does not logically follow that the framers had no concept of a strong executive branch and yet place 'checks and balances' within the three party system.
I have limited space to type so please form your own opinions but verify the validity.
Avg rating: (+9/-5 4)
aceofspades1
June 14, 2007, 11:39 p.m.
Freeform - are you saying by your neg that most in government do not know there is a Constitution Ave in D.C.?- no wonder they act so lost
Avg rating: (+3/-1 2)
innocent-bystander
June 15, 2007, 12:34 a.m.
Do you think Jefferson and Madison would approve of you using their words to silence others or do you think they would approve of everyone having an opinion and encourage you to discuss ideas based upon the idea's merits? It seems to me the founding fathers expected us to think and not be constricted by their apron strings. This isn't 1776.
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
sussane
June 15, 2007, 2:20 a.m.
that was worth reading, thanks for sharing with me
Avg rating: (+3/-2 1)
dunkirk
June 15, 2007, 1:06 p.m.
TWO events characterize the GOP and its concern for America, 9/11 and katrina. In both instances we have Bush on vacation and ignoring a threat to the country. 3000 people die in the worst terrorist attack in US history and where is georgie? Hiding. After being told about it a month before it happened , what did Georgie do? Go on vacation.
Katrina hits and we have a major US city washed off the map. Where's Bush? ON vacation again. In fact he chooses to attend a GOP fundraiser instead of respond, as a leader would, to the crisis in New orleans.
A third event can be added, evacuating US citizens from Lebanon. It took several days to organize begin doing that. The French evacuated MOST of the US citizens wantiong to get out. BUT Israel asked for more jet fuel, bombs and munitions, George had the stuff there within 24 hours.
How much more will it take to get thses guys out??
Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)
innocent-bystander
June 16, 2007, 9:21 a.m.
Populist, "Stupidest.. worst comment you've seen." Should this qualify you for the mensa society? Afraid to let your IQ show? If I had seen a smart comment in response or even a flicker of intelligence in your response then I would not be yawning right now at your arrogantly dullard response.
Yes. Jefferson and Madison were thinkers who made other people think. They encouraged people to think. They did not lawyer people in how right they were as you do. They did not pummel people over the head with namedropping "well Homer, Aristotle and Shakespear blah, blah, blah." If your argument is too weak in merit to stand then so be it. I do not think you, Populist, need to stand behind the founding fathers like a child. Speak your own mind.
Now I see Dunkirk with the shabby bootlicking propaganda, 'right wing blah blah..' I am a Green Party leftist who thinks as the founding fathers did, on my feet and not on my knees. They were also men like you. So act like it.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
chevydog
Sept. 2, 2007, 6:51 p.m.
I'm not sure whether the Declaration of War is universal, but it is a custom that has been followed by many countries over the years. Also ignored by many.
My understanding of the concept is that the Declaration of War must apply to two or more sovereign countries. So Great Britain could not have (don't think they did) declared war on the Boers in South Africa in the early 1900's. In a similar vein, don't think the US could declare war on Al Quaida.
This opens up a gigantic can of worms in relation to the protections of the Geneva Convention. If I'm not mistaken, the Convention assumed that a defined "state of war" existed.

So what can you do with a prisoner who is fighting for an organization that by your (and maybe any) definition is not a sovereign state? The problem's always been there, and there's never been a satisfactory resolution that I've heard of.