Over the past year we’ve watched the American Left start destroying each other from within through increasingly more stringent “purity” tests. Such was also the case during the French Revolution.
In the past few days, some prominent Republicans like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Matt Gaetz are adamant that the ability to go to war should return to being solely under the purview of the Congress, as is clearly stated in the Constitution.
On the surface, President Trump appears to be angry over this but some are suggesting that this may not be the case.
Most interested in your thoughts about this.
I put great stock in what both Dr. Paul’s say and do.
I tend to think President Trump is not a war monger. He uses force when necessary, but not frivolously. I’ll need to have more info to make a case one way or the other.
I do believe it should be a congressional power. But Presient Trump is only using what’s available. When Bush used the power, the exit strategy was “no exit strategy.” President Trump hits them hard and it’s over. But he does what he says, pretty much.
I agree the War Powers Act should be restricted to Congress, but I believe there is an understanding that in times of duress or when a opportunity exists, the president can take out an enemy combatant. Such opportunities are often fleeting; even if Congress were agreeable, there would be no time to consult them as the aforesaid opportunity would be lost by the time they voted “yea” or “nay”. The Constitution is not a suicide pact after all, as a wise Supreme Court Justice once said.
“ I put great stock in what both Dr. Paul’s say and do.”
Sorry, I was giggling too hard after reading that to finish your post.
Paul Bell and Buzard have accurate summaries below, suggest you read ‘em. They coincide with Mark Levin’s position, someone you might benefit from “putting great stock” in things regarding the US Constitution.
mhb23re
“Sorry, I was giggling too hard after reading that to finish your post. from mhb.”
That’s ok little girl.
This is only because Yellow Man Bad. The Dementocrats allowed Obomber to bomb his merry way around the planet. Trump`s platform was to end the never-ending wars; I`d expect he`d be happy leaving it to congress.
To “declare a war” where armies are involved in a wide theatre for a structured campaign? Yes. Finite military action? No. Obama utilized it often with no hue and cry from leftard Democrats. So now we’re supposed to give attention to a very few number of libertarians that have objections with Trump correctly asserting his presidential prerogative in this regard? No.
There have been many occasions in American history where POTUS has done so in that role and where it was absolutely necessary. The Barbary War comes immediately to mind.
How practical is it to have to go to Congress for every decision where the military is used? He is called “Commander-in-Chief” for a reason and being able to execute his duties in this regard is of paramount importance.
This is just spearheaded by retard Democrats that want to weaken the role of the Executive Power and mess around with the separation of powers because they lost an election and they don’t like the fact that Trump can do this with great and competent effect. It makes the scandal with Benghazi look even more troubling. If Trump had been in power when Benghazi occurred, it never would have happened. How he used his power as Commander-In-Chief to defend the American Embassy and to warn off Iran is perfectly in line with the authority he wields as CIC. Gaetz, Paul, and Lee are wrong.
“James Madison successfully advocated that Congress be given the power, not to “make” war but to “declare” war, to “leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.” ”
Congress can end wars, or “police actions”, if they choose to end a war the can defund through the power of the purse. Which is exact!y what they did in Vietnam.
Hamilton in federalist 71:
“Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand.”
no argument on this. Presidents can do what they like.
Good distinction. Congress has the power, specifically, “to declare war”. There are a whole realm of military actions short of war. Clearly the Constitution did not want these debated and voted on a case by case basis, given that, in the day, Congress would require weeks of notice to meet.
Where were these ball-less little heel nipping ninnies when President Obama and the European Trio of Adventurous Idiots in Britain, France and Italy were bombing Libya for four months while turning it into another failed ungovernable state and Islamic hellhole? If the US had stayed out of it, it would have been impossible for the Europeans to persecute their war (for better petroleum contracts). Our militarily deficient NATO allies ran out of bombs in the first week.
None of these partisan clowns once brought up the existing War Powers Act and even attempted to use it to restrain the Blessed Obama, Peace Be His Name. Did they ever seriously debate our involvement in Libya once on the floors of Congress?
It does not matter what powers and rights Congress wants to claim they have. It the cowardly shitstains refuse to ever USE them, they are worthless. This is the same disfunctional branch of government that hasn’t been able to debate pass the regular budget bills for a DECADE! Passing a budget is the biggest constitutional duty they have, and they have refused to fulfill that duty for ten freaking years.
This is more self aggrandizing bull crap from the mouths of midgets. When a controversial war appears, they will find a thousand reasons to silently abdicate this duty too.
Canada was bombing Libya too.
If you look closely you will see the cum stains from Pierre Delecto on Mike Lee’s chin.
Project much?
I want my pre-teens to be able to see alternative viewpoints in the news. I don’t introduce them to sites like SDA, where they could otherwise learn a lot, because of contentless drivel like yours. Way to keep it classy.
That approach keeps me honest too, when posting while tipsy: “would I be OK with my kids reading this, and knowing that it’s me?”
Back when the powers to declare war were designated to Congress, the US was an isolationist power whose only threats came from the North or South and within. Every “war” fought since WW2 has been sanctioned by Congress and then eventually and arguably lost by Congress or POTUS or both. The authorization for US action in Iraq comes from Congress during Bush 2.o. Obama drone-killed thousands without further Congressional authority. Since the US has been sucked into the ME, “victory” or a positive end game will not be allowed or achieved by any meaningful definition. I like the idea of limiting all government action and in the case of the US, it cannot afford to continue to act (by default) as the world’s policeman and Trump at some level likely realizes this. For those that are comfortable with the judgement of Trump to decide what if any war authorization should come from Congress, how would they feel about Clinton or Fuaxcahontas being similarly unconstrained. Whether or not Congress is brought into the minor authorizations, no meaningful change including a systemic appetite for foreign entanglement will come about until the US either inflates away their sovereign debt or goes into default, likely sometime in this decade.
Imagine Congress starting a debate about whether the U.S. should go to war against Russia or China when enemy ICBMs are already in the air…
It ain’t the 17th Century anymore when it took months to get together to fight enemy forces. No to Congress restricting war powers.
Has Nancy Pelosi sent the impeachment papers to the Senate yet? No? Pelosi is the House Majority Leader, think about that.
Think about the U.S. war powers being under Nancy Pelosi’s thumb, hanging on her whim.
If something were to happen to President Trump or VP Pence Nancy Pelosi is 3rd in line as CEO of the United States. War powers?
A. Lincoln:
Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions;
I’ll side with what Abe wrote.
The ability to go to war, actual war like the attack and invasion of Iraq, yes.
Taking out Soleimani is not “going to war”.
That is exactly my position. They have not declared war on anyone. If there is a conflict with Iran, it dates back 40 years. But there has been no declaration of war.
Well, regardless of the presence or absence of presidential war powers, there is a seldom used but constitutional power called Lettres of Marque and Reprisal.
It should be used. Just to let these punk assed thugs know how bad they can be effed up with very little to zero accountability.
If someone is already at war with you and is actively shooting/bombing you without a declaration of war, a declaration should not be necessary to shoot back. Soleimani’s actions are consistent with someone who is at war with the entire western world, focused on the US. Terrorism, as with espionage, can be part of war or outside of it.
If Soleimani was acting as an independent operator then he’s a murderous thug who needed to be put down.
If Soleimani was acting as a representative of Iran in an official capacity then the many acts of Iran that are causus bella mean that Iran was already in a de facto war against the US, and Soleimani was a viable target.
The golden rule applies, as does the learnings of the thought experiment The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Ultimately, if you do unto others as they have done unto you, your civilization is not endangered by acts outside what your culture says is acceptable. Because you are not engaging, you are responding in the way that the culture that is attacking you has said is the correct way to act on the global sphere. If they are rabid dogs, then they must be treated as such or eventually they will bite and possibly infect you.
The President has full unlimited authority to respond to a Nuke attack… The Nuke football activation does not require Congressional notice. The President is responsible for the protection of America…He is the leader of the Administration, Commander in Chief….Short term Military actions doesn’t need Congressional approval and Congressional Oversight is NOT a real time process.. It is a post (after) accountability….
The House & Senate need to stay in their own Wheel House, they have zero executive power
Congressional Powers of the Purse require that a Declaration of WAR must be authorized by Congress….
BTW: Joe Biden refused to travel with the Nuke Football… He will not respond to a first strike Attack on America,,, BIG PROBLEM
Did the US Congress declare war against North Vietnam when President Johnson was CIC ?
Johnson used the questionably legitimate Gulf of Tonkin incidents (alleged attacks on a couple of US Destroyers by North Viet Nam) to come up with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed by Congress in 1964 as authorization for war measures in Viet Nam.
A short explanation of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMhx8R7IL8M
Comment at 0:37 about then Republican POTUS candidate Goldwater needs clarification, as it infers that Goldwater would have been more belligerent towards prosecution of the Vietnam Conflict than Johnson, which was opposite the case.
No.
I do agree, Congress should “take back” the responsibility and authority to declare war.
The US Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, that the congress shall have power,
“To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…”
I would add that if the Congress should declare war, they should have to call out the militia of the United States. The militia is defined in Title 10, US Code, Section 246, which states,
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”
I’m confident that if Congresscritter’s constituent’s kids (and constituents!) were to be called up for a war, it would have to be one hell of a necessity under these rules.
No more unnecessary wars.
Congress has the responsibility of declaring war. However anti-Trumpers want it to be, Trump did not arbitrarily declare war on anyone (except the leftist media). He is entirely within his rights to take out a terrorist as he is the Commander in Chief and is responsible for the safety of Americans where ever they are but this is far from declaring war. So to the media and those Representatives who like to pick fuzz off a peach, buzz off until you know what you’re talking about.