[phsyalcvqh]

I keep hearing from Senators Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and others that the President sometimes violates the Constitution in declaring wars abroad without the consent of Congress.

If that's the case, and Congress fails to enforce the Constitution, then why do these dissenting senators claiming the Constitution is being violated not take it to the Supreme Court to rule on the matter?

I'm sure they have a right, even if only as private citizens, to challenge charge the government in court with violating the Constitution. And if they are right, then I'd imagine the Court would agree with them, in which case the court could order the war dead in its tracks until it goes through Congress.

So, if these wars are indeed unconstitutional, then why have these Senators not taken the government to court?

Because articles of impeachment are issued from the house not the senate

if the house issues such articles the sentate then has authority to try the accused. if the accused is the President then the chief justice presides over the trial

no word on what happens if there is a conviction because it has never happened

so why don't the pursue the issue? they know it is a legal loser to call for impeachment when a president exercises a constitutionally delegated authority. this BS comes up in one context only... unpopular non-declared wars. Legislators who don't approve of the particular choice claim that POTUS has no authority - they are wrong