The Link Between Military and Political Service

[Makalakumu]

History has proved Ron Paul wrong in this respect, including what the Framers have said / left unsaid.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion because other constitutional scholars basically agree with Ron Paul on the matter. This isn't a satisfactory answer to your question, it's more like an attempt by me to say ,"hold your horses, hoss."

You make a lot of good points, lets examine exactly how this statement is defended.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion because other constitutional scholars basically agree with Ron Paul on the matter. This isn't a satisfactory answer to your question, it's more like an attempt by me to say ,"hold your horses, hoss."

You make a lot of good points, lets examine exactly how this statement is defended.

Fair enough. What I meant was more along the lines of the fact that our country has been doing what Ron Paul is saying is unconstitutional since it's beginning, so it behooves Paul to detail his point more thouroughly. If he has, I will admit that I am not a scholar of Ron Paul articles, so I will plead ignorance on that account.

 

[Makalakumu]

Okay, well this has gotten very complicated, but it still seems to ring that the current use of military power around the world is unconstitutional.

Congress must declare war.

In Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution, the powers of the Commander in Chief are explained.

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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The enumerated powers of the Legislative branch are spelled out in Article 1 section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;


To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;


To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;


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;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;



And


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The checks on the Presidential powers of Commander in Chief are described by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers #69.

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. ... It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while that [the power] of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which ... would appertain to the legislature.

The Legislative branch has declared war in major engagements five times in the history of our country. Other engagements were limited and were performed via extra-constitutional executive agreements. The Legislative Branch deferred from declaring war because the actions of the CIC were limited and clear.

After WWII, the President and Congress began to engage in arrangements that allowed the CIC to deploy forces in major, nebulous, engagements around the globe. The Legislative branch deferred its ability to check the President by passing resolutions and changing the name of these actions from "war" to "police actions." This was done in accordance to Article 2 of the UN Charter (1945), which limits the members ability to declare war. More on that later...

After Vietnam, the public had had enough of this and demanded laws that would regulate the CIC in the usage of the military and demand congressional approval. Thus, the War Powers Act was passed and this basically stated that Congress must approve of any military action after 60 days and that they could do this without a declaration of war.

The Constitutionality of this act is questionable as it would seem to support and violate parts of Article 1 Section 8.

Regardless of it's Constitutionality, it become apparent that the Framers originally intended that the only way the US could be engaged in war was by a formal declaration of war and that the progress of this war could be controlled by Congress through appropriations.

The complicating part of this is that the US is also part of the UN. According to the UN Charter, no country may declare war on each other. Since the US, is a member of this organization, Congress is not able to actually declare war and must circumvent this Constitutional requirement.

So, what we have here is a Legislative Branch and an Executive Branch that have made an end run around Constitutional requirements in regards to the use of military forces. Dr. Paul is essentially correct that the UN is seen by Congress to supercede the authority of the Constitution and that Congress must declare war in order fulfill its Constitutional duties.

Two major bits of irony become apparent. The first is that it would seem that US troops are actually beholden to the UN charter OVER the Constitution. The second is that the UN, an organization dedicated to peace, has actually made it EASIER for the US to go to war. The bar set by our Constitution for engaging in war is higher then the UN's.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Okay, well this has gotten very complicated, but it still seems to ring that the current use of military power around the world is unconstitutional.

Congress must declare war.

Where does it say this in the Constitution. I will agree that the Congress may have to sanction any use of military force, but, once again, that does not mean that they have to declare war, as you later concede with this:

The Legislative branch has declared war in major engagements five times in the history of our country. Other engagements were limited and were performed via extra-constitutional executive agreements. The Legislative Branch deferred from declaring war because the actions of the CIC were limited and clear.

Unless you believe that such actions, albeit limited and clear, were unconstitutional, which it doesn't sound like you are. Not only that, but at least one of these situations, the sanctioning of the use of the navy against the Barbary pirates without a declaration of war, was done by the Founders themselves.

But, once again, where is the limiting language used by the Founders or in the Constitution that prevents them from doing so. With all due respect, it is your interpretation of the matter.
In Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution, the powers of the Commander in Chief are explained.

The enumerated powers of the Legislative branch are spelled out in Article 1 section 8.



The checks on the Presidential powers of Commander in Chief are described by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers #69.

I will concede that the Congress has the sole authority to approve of military use of force, outside immediate exigencies.

After WWII, the President and Congress began to engage in arrangements that allowed the CIC to deploy forces in major, nebulous, engagements around the globe. The Legislative branch deferred its ability to check the President by passing resolutions and changing the name of these actions from "war" to "police actions." This was done in accordance to Article 2 of the UN Charter (1945), which limits the members ability to declare war. More on that later...

After Vietnam, the public had had enough of this and demanded laws that would regulate the CIC in the usage of the military and demand congressional approval. Thus, the War Powers Act was passed and this basically stated that Congress must approve of any military action after 60 days and that they could do this without a declaration of war.

The Constitutionality of this act is questionable as it would seem to support and violate parts of Article 1 Section 8.

Regardless of it's Constitutionality, it become apparent that the Framers originally intended that the only way the US could be engaged in war was by a formal declaration of war and that the progress of this war could be controlled by Congress through appropriations.

But, once again, you have yet to show me any writings of the Founders which prevents them from doing so, nor any limitations within the Constitution itself. In fact, the Constitution tells us otherwise, as you have shown:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal

If we look at Wikipedia:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. Clarendon Press, 1989 ( def. 1 of "marque" & def. 2a of "marque" defining "letter of marque"), the first recorded use of "letters of marque and reprisal" was in an English statute in 1354 during the reign of Edward III. The phrase referred to "a licene granted by a sovereign to a subject, authorizing him to make reprisals on the subjects of a hostile state for injuries alleged to have been done to him by the enemy's army."

One could make a simplistic arguement that this does not necessarily have to be given to a privateer, as was done in the past, but could be written authorization to the President to utlilze the military in combat action not amounting to war. In fact, looking further into the Wikipedia article on "Letters of Marque":

The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11, 2001 attacks and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy", and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means. Congressman Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden on April 15, 2009. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.

The Letters of Marque and Reprisal actually make the War Powers Act unnecessary. This is similar to the idea that the Founders (in general, as evidenced by the Federalist Papers) did not want, or place into the Constitution, a limit on the Federal governments ability to tax whatever it wanted. We then have the 16th Amendment redundant. The only limit on taxation that the Founders put into place was what they could spend the money on, not how they could obtain it.

The complicating part of this is that the US is also part of the UN. According to the UN Charter, no country may declare war on each other. Since the US, is a member of this organization, Congress is not able to actually declare war and must circumvent this Constitutional requirement.

So, what we have here is a Legislative Branch and an Executive Branch that have made an end run around Constitutional requirements in regards to the use of military forces. Dr. Paul is essentially correct that the UN is seen by Congress to supercede the authority of the Constitution and that Congress must declare war in order fulfill its Constitutional duties.

Once again, this is not a Constitutional requirement. See Above.

Two major bits of irony become apparent. The first is that it would seem that US troops are actually beholden to the UN charter OVER the Constitution.

This is not true, though it may seem as though it is. See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Reid vs. Covert. Consitutional law cannot be trumped by an international treaty.

The second is that the UN, an organization dedicated to peace, has actually made it EASIER for the US to go to war. The bar set by our Constitution for engaging in war is higher then the UN's.

See above.

Now, I will admit that my argument is certainly stretched when it comes to justification for such engagements where we are not physically attacked. This would be where the philosophy of the Founders may come into play. But, in this particular case, I would argue that since the Founders did not put any specific limitations upon the Government for when it may or may not use military force, that they left it up to the government, as legislated by the Congress, believed were necessary for the safety of the People.

 

[Makalakumu]

Where does it say this in the Constitution.

The Constitution specifically states what Congress may do to approve military action.

Unless you believe that such actions, albeit limited and clear, were unconstitutional, which it doesn't sound like you are. Not only that, but at least one of these situations, the sanctioning of the use of the navy against the Barbary pirates without a declaration of war, was done by the Founders themselves.

The "founder" in question didn't abrogate his Constitutional power, Congress did. For some reason, Congress chooses to look the other way on some occasions. This was a violation of Constitutional duty.

But, once again, where is the limiting language used by the Founders or in the Constitution that prevents them from doing so. With all due respect, it is your interpretation of the matter.

This is a matter of ideology. Some people believe that the Constitution says what it says and some believe that if it doesn't say it, then it's fine and dandy. From what I have read, this is how Congress is able to approve of military force without following the measures that the Constitution lays out. The argument is simply, "well, the Constitution doesn't way we can't do that."

I will concede that the Congress has the sole authority to approve of military use of force, outside immediate exigencies.

From what I've read, it would seem that the Constitution set up military powers so that they are solely used for defensive measures. The Framers believed that we should live in a peaceful nation and defend ourselves if attacked. This calls into question Bush's Doctrine of Preemption. American doesn't attack first.

But, once again, you have yet to show me any writings of the Founders which prevents them from doing so, nor any limitations within the Constitution itself. In fact, the Constitution tells us otherwise, as you have shown:

Monty Python does a skit about the Holy Hand Grenade that is appropriate here.

The Constitution is specific on what Congress may do and some people believe that it is okay for Congress to invent new ways of approving military action and some believe that you must follow the Constitution to the exact wording.

Now we see why holy dogma was so exacting and specific, LOL.

One could make a simplistic argument that this does not necessarily have to be given to a privateer, as was done in the past, but could be written authorization to the President to utlilze the military in combat action not amounting to war. In fact, looking further into the Wikipedia article on "Letters of Marque":

Ron Paul was wise in trying to get Congress to assume it's Constitutional Duties as it would have limited military action to the people who "attacked" us. This is what the Founders intended. They gave the President the power to use force in a number of ways and Congress must approve. They gave Congress the ways that they may approve and hoped that this language would be clear enough.

The bottom line is that Congress has specific ways that it may approve of military force. That is what the Constitution says.

This is not true, though it may seem as though it is. See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Reid vs. Covert. Consitutional law cannot be trumped by an international treaty.

I need to read more about this, because that case would mean that a great many treaties would be invalidated. Thanks for this.

Now, I will admit that my argument is certainly stretched when it comes to justification for such engagements where we are not physically attacked. This would be where the philosophy of the Founders may come into play. But, in this particular case, I would argue that since the Founders did not put any specific limitations upon the Government for when it may or may not use military force, that they left it up to the government, as legislated by the Congress, believed were necessary for the safety of the People.

The Founders gave Congress specific direction on how they may approve military force. It comes down to ideology. Do you want to read the Constitution, or do you want interpret what it doesn't say. It's like rules in game, "well it doesn't say we CAN'T do that."

Well, actually, it says what you CAN do and that's actually more clear then laying out a thousand commandment of what you CAN'T do.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The Constitution is unclear on many points, and where it is, there are many interpretations that come into use. Until challenged and settled by the SCOTUS, they remain unclear; but to declare them unconstitutional on the basis that they violate the intent of the Framers is opinion, not a statement of fact. In essence, they are treated as lawful unless the judicial branch makes a finding that they are not.

The Framers certainly did not intend for the President to have unfettered ability to unilaterally declare war, and Congress has expressed their unease with allowing Presidents in past times to push normally-legal Police Actions into all-out war (Korea) without a formal declaration from Congress.

However, this is not the same as saying that such actions are therefore unconstitutional. If a challenge to such actions should be granted cert by the SCOTUS and they should find that yes, such actions do violate the Constitution, then and only then may we say such actions are unconstitutional.

It was always my opinion that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to have and bear arms. But until recent events, I would have been incorrect to insist that laws that have now been declared unconstitutional were so in a legal sense, and the people who implemented such laws are hardly criminals for having violated the Constitution.

Likewise, those members of the armed forces who carry out the orders of the President and engage in armed hostilities at his direction are hardly war criminals, nor are they violating their oaths to the Constitution; not until such time as the SCOTUS has ruled and stripped the President from that particular currently-assumed authority.

Your statement is incorrect; if the Constitution says what Congress can do, that does not mean that is the only way it can be done. In questions where there is no clear statement, SCOTUS must rule or a defining amendment must be put in place; else such behavior will be considered legal.

I rather dislike the concept that every member of the armed forces violates their oath to the Constitution the moment they put on a uniform, or that people actually hold that opinion. Frankly, I've sort of left this conversation because I find such opinions not just incorrect but distasteful. The clear hostility displayed leaves me not just angry but sad.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The Constitution specifically states what Congress may do to approve military action.



The "founder" in question didn't abrogate his Constitutional power, Congress did. For some reason, Congress chooses to look the other way on some occasions. This was a violation of Constitutional duty.



This is a matter of ideology. Some people believe that the Constitution says what it says and some believe that if it doesn't say it, then it's fine and dandy. From what I have read, this is how Congress is able to approve of military force without following the measures that the Constitution lays out. The argument is simply, "well, the Constitution doesn't way we can't do that."



From what I've read, it would seem that the Constitution set up military powers so that they are solely used for defensive measures. The Framers believed that we should live in a peaceful nation and defend ourselves if attacked. This calls into question Bush's Doctrine of Preemption. American doesn't attack first.



Monty Python does a skit about the Holy Hand Grenade that is appropriate here.

The Constitution is specific on what Congress may do and some people believe that it is okay for Congress to invent new ways of approving military action and some believe that you must follow the Constitution to the exact wording.

Now we see why holy dogma was so exacting and specific, LOL.



Ron Paul was wise in trying to get Congress to assume it's Constitutional Duties as it would have limited military action to the people who "attacked" us. This is what the Founders intended. They gave the President the power to use force in a number of ways and Congress must approve. They gave Congress the ways that they may approve and hoped that this language would be clear enough.

The bottom line is that Congress has specific ways that it may approve of military force. That is what the Constitution says.



I need to read more about this, because that case would mean that a great many treaties would be invalidated. Thanks for this.



The Founders gave Congress specific direction on how they may approve military force. It comes down to ideology. Do you want to read the Constitution, or do you want interpret what it doesn't say. It's like rules in game, "well it doesn't say we CAN'T do that."

Well, actually, it says what you CAN do and that's actually more clear then laying out a thousand commandment of what you CAN'T do.

But how do you address the issue of Congresses ability to issue letters of Marquee and Reprisal. Those letters, ie. congressional legislation authorizing a military use of force.l, can be issued to anyone by the Congress, including to the President. As the president is the CIC, he is then Conditionally authorized to use the military for such action.

There is no abrogattion by Congress' power, just a different way of "issuing the letter".

 

[Makalakumu]

The Constitution is unclear on many points, and where it is, there are many interpretations that come into use. Until challenged and settled by the SCOTUS, they remain unclear; but to declare them unconstitutional on the basis that they violate the intent of the Framers is opinion, not a statement of fact. In essence, they are treated as lawful unless the judicial branch makes a finding that they are not.

The Framers certainly did not intend for the President to have unfettered ability to unilaterally declare war, and Congress has expressed their unease with allowing Presidents in past times to push normally-legal Police Actions into all-out war (Korea) without a formal declaration from Congress.

However, this is not the same as saying that such actions are therefore unconstitutional. If a challenge to such actions should be granted cert by the SCOTUS and they should find that yes, such actions do violate the Constitution, then and only then may we say such actions are unconstitutional.

It was always my opinion that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to have and bear arms. But until recent events, I would have been incorrect to insist that laws that have now been declared unconstitutional were so in a legal sense, and the people who implemented such laws are hardly criminals for having violated the Constitution.

Likewise, those members of the armed forces who carry out the orders of the President and engage in armed hostilities at his direction are hardly war criminals, nor are they violating their oaths to the Constitution; not until such time as the SCOTUS has ruled and stripped the President from that particular currently-assumed authority.

Your statement is incorrect; if the Constitution says what Congress can do, that does not mean that is the only way it can be done. In questions where there is no clear statement, SCOTUS must rule or a defining amendment must be put in place; else such behavior will be considered legal.

I rather dislike the concept that every member of the armed forces violates their oath to the Constitution the moment they put on a uniform, or that people actually hold that opinion. Frankly, I've sort of left this conversation because I find such opinions not just incorrect but distasteful. The clear hostility displayed leaves me not just angry but sad.

You make a good point here. Legally, what is going on is law until it is actually challenged and found differently by the SCOTUS.

Regarding opinions, well, that's a different story. It certainly is proper to reason that something is unconstitutional. People do this all of the time. It has no legal standing, but it still may be a convincing argument.

 

[Makalakumu]

But how do you address the issue of Congresses ability to issue letters of Marquee and Reprisal. Those letters, ie. congressional legislation authorizing a military use of force.l, can be issued to anyone by the Congress, including to the President. As the president is the CIC, he is then Conditionally authorized to use the military for such action.

There is no abrogattion by Congress' power, just a different way of "issuing the letter".

I think we are getting off track here. These letters don't really apply to large scale, all out, war. I found this from a lawyer and constitutional scholar on the matter. Here is someone who knows way more then me about and he lays out the argument convincingly.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-08.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The wars of kings and queens of Europe had brought not only havoc and destruction to the lives of those forced into battle and those left to suffer their loss. They had also brought poverty. They were stark symbols that the subjects living under such monarchies lacked any voice or any control over their destiny.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Several years after the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison would write: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some might ask how George W. Bush's war against Iraq is different from other U.S wars. Congress has not declared war since World War II. While some of the U.S. military actions since that time have received the equivalent of a congressional declaration, others have not. There have been other violations of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. [/FONT]

Notice that he goes on to say that it's not only the current wars, it's also the precedent that has been set since WWII.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president."
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to defy it. It is time to demand our country back.[/FONT]

It's not just Ron Paul, we have people on both sides of the aisle that are saying that the wars are illegal and unconstitutional. Many of these people put their political careers on the line to say this and I respect that, because this point of view needs to get into the minds of the public.



The implication is that the US has strayed from it's Constitutional roots and is heading down a path the Founding Fathers warned us against. This infuriates me and saddens me, because I think that if we simply followed the rules of our Republic we and the world would be a lot better off.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is another article on the matter in which a group of law students and professors research the matter in detail and actually sue the Bush Administration on the subject of the illegality of the war.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421359865

 

[Carol]

I have a really hard time with all of this. This topic is a very big philosophical debate...one that most people in the military don't really care about. To the majority of us, it is a job. Try to heap responsibility on us....but the image that some people seem to have of the helicopter pilot laughing and shooting children is WAY off. There are VERY few of us who want to or like killing ANYONE, let alone children....and those who do are quickly shown their way out.

I don't think illistrating someone in the armed services as a person that wants to or likes killing is any more accurate than illustrating someone on the mat as a person that wants to or likes killing. :idunno:

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I think we are getting off track here. These letters don't really apply to large scale, all out, war. I found this from a lawyer and constitutional scholar on the matter. Here is someone who knows way more then me about and he lays out the argument convincingly.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-08.htm

Notice that he goes on to say that it's not only the current wars, it's also the precedent that has been set since WWII.


It's not just Ron Paul, we have people on both sides of the aisle that are saying that the wars are illegal and unconstitutional. Many of these people put their political careers on the line to say this and I respect that, because this point of view needs to get into the minds of the public.

The implication is that the US has strayed from it's Constitutional roots and is heading down a path the Founding Fathers warned us against. This infuriates me and saddens me, because I think that if we simply followed the rules of our Republic we and the world would be a lot better off.

The problem with your argument is that the Founders themselves, through Congressional authorization regarding the use of military force without an official declaration of war, did these things. This is not a modern phenomenon, but something that goes back to the beginning of the country. I point you to the Northwest Indian War, the First Barbary War ("started" by Thomas Jefferson, no less), the Quasi-War (ironic, don't you think), and Tecumseh's War.

The Founder's own actions deny the position that Congress must declare war in order for the military to be used. In fact, there were times when some Founders, such as James Madison, used the military without Congressional Authorization, such as during the Seminole Wars. And he was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers!

Authough I think that the Founders intended it to be difficult for the Government to get into a war, they did so by setting up the bureacracy in such a way as to make it difficult. In no way did they limit for what the military could be used. War is a political enterprise, and therefore the political body had to have the flexibility to utilize force as it saw fit within the confinse of the Constitution. And that document says nothing about how the military could be utilized, only who can authorize it's utilization.