Started by Darth Fife, July 06, 2015, 12:58:05 AM
Quote from: Darth Fife on July 06, 2015, 12:58:05 AMAs I look back at the past 50 years or so, I can't help but notice what a mess our greedy political class has made of this world by their egregious miss-use of the War Powers Act. Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan - just to name a few.Conservatives often speak of the value of National Sovereignty, as well we should. However, there are two sides to that coin! Other nations have their sovereignty too. How can it be legal, let alone, moral for the U.S. to send our armed forced into a foreign country to "kill people and break things" without a formal declaration of war against that country? I might not be the sharpest pencil in the draw, but if you are bombing a country's cities, and killing its soldiers (and possibly civilians) that kind of sounds like "war" to me? Since WWII every military "engagement" the U.S. has been involved in has been an elective military action - in that we were not directly attacked by a foreign power, and therefore, did not have to respond militarily. These are not the kind of "wars" the War Powers Act was created to address. In fact, these are the very kinds of military engagements that I think should require a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress. I think it is time to either recind, or heavily amend the War Powers Act. Just my $.02 worth...
Quote from: Darth Fife on July 08, 2015, 04:03:40 AMThe reasons Lincoln did not seek a formal declaration of war against the Confederacy were practical ones (on his part). 1. Half of the House of Representatives were missing! It would have been impossible to get a valid vote authorizing the war. 2. Even if he could have gotten a vote to authorize the war, declaring war on the Confederacy would be a tacit recognition of the C.S.A. existence as an independent nation! This might have been the very thing England needed to come into the war on the side of the Confederacy.
Quote from: zewazir on July 08, 2015, 11:59:29 AMAgreed on all points that Lincoln had very good reasons for avoiding declaration of war with respect to the Civil War.But that does not change the fact that the end result is a long established history in which the CinC of the U.S. military has constitutional authority to deploy military assets without any associated declaration of war. Among the reasoning used to support the authority of the presidency is use of military and declaration of The use of military force is, by definition, a military act, while the declaration of war is a political act.Again, the SCOTUS decision which determined the use of military force does not have to be accompanied by a declaration of war has been challenged multiple times, aqnd each time the original determination has been upheld. The fact is the Constitution DOES make the president CinC over the military, and it does NOT limit that authority only to times of war.I will also say that I, personally, am not entirely comfortable with so much power being in the hands of a single person - especially with nuclear weapons available. But I can also see, and reluctantly agree with the reasoning of the Court - coming from a time when they actually compared the situation with what the Constitution SAYS, and not what they want it to mean.
Quote from: Darth Fife on July 10, 2015, 02:56:23 AMI agree. There needs to be a balance. If the Homeland is attacked, the President should have the ability to act first and get a declaration from Congress later (if there is a "later").However, in the types of military actions I've listed - what I call elective wars - I think the President should be required, by law, to seek a formal declaration of war.
Quote from: zewazir on July 10, 2015, 12:06:03 PMAgain, agreed, with one modification: if an ally is attacked - whether you believe we should be involved with such alliances or not - we are obligated to act.