The Glade 4.0

It's sad that there are still people who think there's a large difference between the two parties.

It's sad that there are still people who think there's a large difference between the two parties.

I'm fairly certain that the Executive can engage in military matters anywhere provided he answers to Congress within 20 days. I believe that Congress must approve it at that time.

This is a good rule. It enables him to move quickly if needed.

Again, not in the Constitution.

So wait, RD. Lobbing missles into another sovereign nation is not an act of war, but a military engagement? Is that what we would call it if another country did that to the U.S.?

The Importance of the Declaration [of War]

A declaration of war, I am arguing, is an essential aspect of war fighting particularly for the republic when engaged in frequent wars. It achieves a number of things. First, it holds both Congress and the president equally responsible for the decision, and does so unambiguously. Second, it affirms to the people that their lives have now changed and that they will be bearing burdens. Third, it gives the president the political and moral authority he needs to wage war on their behalf and forces everyone to share in the moral responsibility of war. And finally, by submitting it to a political process, many wars might be avoided. When we look at some of our wars after World War II it is not clear they had to be fought in the national interest, nor is it clear that the presidents would not have been better remembered if they had been restrained. A declaration of war both frees and restrains the president, as it was meant to do.

I began by talking about the American empire. I won’t make the argument on that here, but simply assert it. What is most important is that the republic not be overwhelmed in the course of pursuing imperial goals. The declaration of war is precisely the point at which imperial interests can overwhelm republican prerogatives.

There are enormous complexities here. Nuclear war has not been abolished. The United States has treaty obligations to the United Nations and other countries. Covert operations are essential, as is military assistance, both of which can lead to war. I am not making the argument that constant accommodation to reality does not have to be made. I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?

My readers will know that I am far from squeamish about war. I have questions about Libya, for example, but I am open to the idea that it is a low-cost, politically appropriate measure. But I am not open to the possibility that quickly after the commencement of hostilities the president need not receive authority to wage war from Congress. And I am arguing that neither the Congress nor the president has the authority to substitute resolutions for declarations of war. Nor should either want to. Politically, this has too often led to disaster for presidents. Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties.

As our international power and interests surge, it would seem reasonable that our commitment to republican principles would surge. These commitments appear inconvenient. They are meant to be. War is a serious matter, and presidents and particularly Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war. Members of Congress should not be able to hide behind ambiguous resolutions only to turn on the president during difficult times, claiming that they did not mean what they voted for. A vote on a declaration of war ends that. It also prevents a president from acting as king by default. Above all, it prevents the public from pretending to be victims when their leaders take them to war. The possibility of war will concentrate the mind of a distracted public like nothing else. It turns voting into a life-or-death matter, a tonic for our adolescent body politic.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by engagements "since the very early years." You don't need a declaration of war to put down rebellions in your own country.

I read a really well written article on why our whole "get resolutions to attack" rather than getting a declaration of war is bad. I'll post the conclusion. The previous sections are good as well and I'd encourage RD and Aizle to read them and let me know what they think.

I read a really well written article on why our whole "get resolutions to attack" rather than getting a declaration of war is bad. I'll post the conclusion. The previous sections are good as well and I'd encourage RD and Aizle to read them and let me know what they think.

So wait, RD. Lobbing missles into another sovereign nation is not an act of war, but a military engagement? Is that what we would call it if another country did that to the U.S.?

Well, that didn't last long. So, we are no longer "protecting civilians". We are taking an active role in the revolution. The government confirmed that we have CIA inside Libya embedded with the rebels, providing tactical training and calling in air strikes along the front lines.

News that U.S. officials told Reuters that President Barack Obama had authorized covert operations in Libya raised the prospect of greater support for the rebels. Experts assume special forces are on the ground "spotting" targets for air strikes. But public confirmation from Washington may indicate a willingness for greater involvement with the rebel side.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

Point out where in the Constitution it says that the President needs a declaration of war to take any particular action as Commander in Chief.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

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

war, n.
1. a. Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

I fear you've made a grievous error in your analysis, Stathol.