If wars are unconstitutional...
 

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?

Gutless?

Perhaps. But what? Are they unsure of their claims? If they are absolutely sure of their stance, then it should require no courage whatsoever since they know they'd win, right?

Unless they're unsure of their claims?

They seemingly have.

Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Howard Coble (R-NC), John Duncan (R-TN), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Conyers (D-MI) Ron Paul (R-TX), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tim Johnson (R-IL) and Dan Burton (R-IN) have filled a joint complaint agaisnt the president for his illegal war in Libya in federal court.

there's a whole thread discussing it here: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...ver-libya.html

I think there are a few things at play, some of them being:

1. Many in Congress privately like the president taking this power from them. The reason for this is that they do not want to be on record as voting for or against war.

2. Many don't really care so much that the office of the presidency is doing it so much as Obama is doing it. In other words, if their guy was in power they wouldn't be voicing objections. So what they are doing is objecting just to gain political points.

3. Some won't do it because they do not believe it has a chance of having the desired outcome. They don't believe not because their case has no merit but because they believe (and rightly so, imo) that the system is so corrupt that it is impossible to change it.

Thanks for the link.

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

Do you think Obama could issue an executive order limiting Congress's constitutional authority?

If not, why can Congress do the equivalent, pass a statute, limiting the President's?

As I said in the other thread, because the constitution specifically gives congress the power to 'define' constitutional powers. It does not give the President this power.

The constitution defines constitutional powers.

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?

Because the Congress can also fire the President as well?

I agree with all your points.

Probably because it is an uphill battle to challenge on constitutional grounds but it is far easier to use the "unconstitutional" claim as a talking point during mic time for political interest reasons.

To a point. And then it gives congress the power to further define them with the neccesary and proper clause. And the courts the power to decide official disagreements.

Because of the political question doctrine. See e.g., Baker v. Carr

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.http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...lies/smile.gif

I disagree.

If the congress grants the commander in chief War Powers Act authorization to use military force and also continues to vote to fund the use of that military force then that is obviously a de-facto declaration of war.

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

What congress does, doesn't negate their responsibility under Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. The War Powers Act is merely a cop out by congress.