[Reocourgigiot]

Out of curiousity, do you believe the Barbary Wars were unconstitutional?

Since war was never officially declared, yes.

[AlexClips]

The War Powers Act is merely a cop out by congress.

Howso? In your opinion?

[huntbytnkbel]

Undeclared through an act of congress wars are unconstitutional. We haven't had a constitutional war since WWII. You can say this and that about the mettle of certain politicians but the constitution is the constitution.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say a congressional declaration of war is required for the federal govt to make war.

[Eagevawax]

Since war was never officially declared, yes.

What do you make of the fact that Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ("Father of the Constitution") sent the military to war in the Barbary Coast without a formal declaration of war and no one batted an eye? It seems odd to me.

[ecosportpol_ru]

Howso? In your opinion?

By outsourcing their responsibility granted under the constitution to the executive branch.

[beenBinybelia]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say a congressional declaration of war is required for the federal govt to make war.

Powers of Congress.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[Dyslermergerb]

What do you make of the fact that Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ("Father of the Constitution") sent the military to war in the Barbary Coast without a formal declaration of war and no one batted an eye? It seems odd to me.

Dismayed and yet, not surprised in the least. The constitution has been violated to some degree in one fashion or another almost since its inception.

[adultcheee]

Dismayed and yet, not surprised in the least. The constitution has been violated to some degree in one fashion or another almost since its inception.

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.

[wpFWNoIt]

I agree with all your points.

I think it's kinda funny that we agree on a lot of what the problems are but we are completely in disagreement over the methods or means on how to fix the problems.

[Piemonedmow]

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.

[bmwservis]

Because Republican public servants consistently lack the courage of the convictions of those who elected them. The most pathetic "representatives" out there - hence the Tea Party.

[Misespimb]

What do you make of the fact that Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ("Father of the Constitution") sent the military to war in the Barbary Coast without a formal declaration of war and no one batted an eye? It seems odd to me.

Obviously, Jefferson and Madison did not understand the constitution as well as the right wing posters in these forums do....

I mean sending the military to attack a country in North Africa without a declaration of war is something only a Kenyan Usurper would do.

So I guess Jefferson was really a Kenyan Usurper, Seriously, where is his Birth Certificate.....?

[mGUuZRyA]

Obviously, Jefferson and Madison did not understand the constitution as well as the right wing posters in these forums do....

I mean sending the military to attack a country in North Africa without a declaration of war is something only a Kenyan Usurper would do.

So I guess Jefferson was really a Kenyan Usurper, Seriously, where is his Birth Certificate.....?

Are you arguing that the War Powers Resolution is not in effect because it was not in effect before it was created?

[letittbe]

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

One blockade that the SCOTUS loves to throw in the way of any case they don't want to face is the blockade of the plaintiff not having "standing".

In other words, unless the senators and congressmen can show that they were directly and materially harmed by the war, the SCOTUS will more than likely throw the case out for lack of standing. I doubt being a congressman by itself establishes standing in the SCOTUS's eyes.

I think that's usually a bullshit excuse on their part. Every American citizen should be considered to have standing for constitutional cases, because when the government violates the constitution we are all materially harmed. Unfortunately the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way.

[truportodfa]

One blockade that the SCOTUS loves to throw in the way of any case they don't want to face is the blockade of the plaintiff not having "standing".

In other words, unless the senators and congressmen can show that they were directly and materially harmed by the war, the SCOTUS will more than likely throw the case out for lack of standing. I doubt being a congressman by itself establishes standing in the SCOTUS's eyes.

I think that's usually a bullshit excuse on their part. Every American citizen should be considered to have standing for constitutional cases, because when the government violates the constitution we are all materially harmed. Unfortunately the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way.

It's like declaring the defendants of tax evasion cases in which the individual is on trial for not paying income tax and rightly claims the 10th amendment, frivolous claims. It's a pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me.

[toyboy]

Powers of Congress.

Nowhere in that does it say 'congress is required to declare war', nor does it even say 'how to declare war'. However, the constitution does explicty give congress the power to make laws regulate all the powers of the federal govt (like the war powers act).

You are stretching if you think giving congress the power to declare war, limits them to only being able to make war under a formal declaration. The only think it does it limit everyone else from declaring war.

[favwebbb]

Whats your theory here? You think the drafters of the constitution intended for Congress to only have constitutional authority to "declare" a war while the President is free to wage any war he cares to wage?

no

they gave Congress the authority to cut off the $$$$ that fund the war - a MIGHTY big check on executiv authority

there's plenty of historical precedent for this in England (probably other places too but I'm only familiar with England)

Its one thing to say we are at war with X and quite another to have the means to do something about it.... Congress can provide or deny the means

Because the Congress can also fire the President as well?

huh?

no they can't

Obviously, Jefferson and Madison did not understand the constitution as well as the right wing posters in these forums do....

I mean sending the military to attack a country in North Africa without a declaration of war is something only a Kenyan Usurper would do.

So I guess Jefferson was really a Kenyan Usurper, Seriously, where is his Birth Certificate.....?

lol

[MortgFinsJohnQ]

This isn't a goddamned war... its a NATO OPERATION. We are required to take part.