DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Piemonedmow** · 08-29-2012, 11:32 PM

Apparently so.

I view it this way: The Constitution does not expressly prohibit the President from using the military in the absence of a declaration of war. Such use -- as, for example, in the Barbary Wars -- by Jefferson and Madison indicate that neither the author nor his contemporaries interpreted it to impliedly contain such a prohibition either. Instead, it has always been assumed that the President had authority to act militarily without a declaration of war, and this assumption is carried forward and codified in a sense in the War Powers Resolution, which takes the President's authority to act first as a given.

There seldom is much dispute about it, but as I indicated earlier: I believe the courts would leave resolution of such an issue to the executive and legislative branches based on the political question doctrine.

Fair enough. My gripe with these kinds of situations though is that these situations are often used for much more pervasive, subversive, overt, covert and even reprehensible actions. These things lead to quagmires almost 100% of the time. In the case of the Barbary Wars, it didn't really lead to much except a stop to piracy for the most part and a peace treaty. Also, America was protecting its commercial interests which is a necessity. It doesn't negate the unconstitutionality of not declaring war but as far as protecting a nation's commercial interests go, it was necessary. The same cannot be said about North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and many other actions. It's the whole principle which I'm after.

08-29-2012, 11:32 PM	#30
Piemonedmow Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 406 Senior Member	Apparently so. I view it this way: The Constitution does not expressly prohibit the President from using the military in the absence of a declaration of war. Such use -- as, for example, in the Barbary Wars -- by Jefferson and Madison indicate that neither the author nor his contemporaries interpreted it to impliedly contain such a prohibition either. Instead, it has always been assumed that the President had authority to act militarily without a declaration of war, and this assumption is carried forward and codified in a sense in the War Powers Resolution, which takes the President's authority to act first as a given. There seldom is much dispute about it, but as I indicated earlier: I believe the courts would leave resolution of such an issue to the executive and legislative branches based on the political question doctrine. Fair enough. My gripe with these kinds of situations though is that these situations are often used for much more pervasive, subversive, overt, covert and even reprehensible actions. These things lead to quagmires almost 100% of the time. In the case of the Barbary Wars, it didn't really lead to much except a stop to piracy for the most part and a peace treaty. Also, America was protecting its commercial interests which is a necessity. It doesn't negate the unconstitutionality of not declaring war but as far as protecting a nation's commercial interests go, it was necessary. The same cannot be said about North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and many other actions. It's the whole principle which I'm after.
	Quote