"To Declare War"

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,435
7,003
113
Washington DC
That's in the Constitution, under Article I, Section 8, which starts "The Congress shall have Power. . ."

This is relevant to the current campaign against DOUCHE.

I maintain that while the President may, on his own authority, respond to imminent threats against the United States, only Congress can authorise "military action" (i.e., war) against an entity that is not presenting an imminent threat. For a definition of "imminent threat," I quote one of my law professors. . . "The Grim Reaper has to be on the backswing."

And I don't think DOUCHE presents an imminent threat to the United States.

Agree? Disagree? How come?
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
There's been a steady usurpation of war making powers by the Executive Branch from Congress since Viet Nam. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR took no direct action until he'd addressed Congress and signed a Declaration of War that they had passed.

Now the President takes unilateral military operations that supposedly fall below the threshold of 'War'.. but in essence are Acts of War, but are justified in terms of protecting the security and interests of the United States.. often without even consulting Congress. These are military activities, the approval of which was to rest with the House of Representatives and the Senate, in the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. has been in a more or less continuous state of military engagement.. in 'Small Wars' since Korea. It's the natural state of Empires. It was for Rome.. It was for the British Empire (in Victoria's Little Wars).. and now its true for the U.S.. And nobody seems to care about the U.S. Constitution anymore... since it was meant to apply to the American Nation.. not the American Empire.
 
Last edited:

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,435
7,003
113
Washington DC
There's been a steady usurpation of war making powers by the Congress since Viet Nam. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR took no direct action until he'd addressed Congress and signed a Declaration of War that they had passed.

Now the Executive Branch takes unilateral military operations that supposedly fall below the threshold of 'War'.. but in essence are Acts of War. These are military activities, the approval of which was to rest with Congress, in the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. has been in a more or less continuous state of military engagement.. in 'Small Wars' since Korea. It's the natural state of Empires. It was for Rome.. It was for the British Empire (in Victoria's Little Wars).. and now its true for the U.S.. And nobody seems to care about the U.S. Constitution anymore... since it was meant to apply to the American Nation.. not the American Empire.
Yes and no. Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, and Iraq II were all fought under Congressional declarations. Panama, Grenada, Central America, and the United Fruit wars, not so much.

But what about DOUCHE? Do you think the President has the Constitutional power to go after them without Congressional authorisation?
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
I agree with the OP. During the Cold War I supported the use of adroit executive action in the service of an existential struggle with a totalitarian ideology. In retrospect I was wrong. I realize now that in a representative democracy waging war requires virtually all parts of the polity to buy into the conflict. Without that buy in the potential is too great for developing a political culture in which domestic recriminations are possible which can be used for partisan political advantage. In this context buy in requires a declaration of war as contemplated by the Constitution.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,435
7,003
113
Washington DC
I agree with the OP. During the Cold War I supported the use of adroit executive action in the service of an existential struggle with a totalitarian ideology. In retrospect I was wrong. I realize now that in a representative democracy waging war requires virtually all parts of the polity to buy into the conflict. Without that buy in the potential is too great for developing a political culture in which domestic recriminations are possible which can be used for partisan political advantage. In this context buy in requires a declaration of war as contemplated by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, there's a ratched effect on acquisition of power. It's one way and one way only.

Back when the hysterics were squealing for the Patriot Act, I asked people "Do you think President Hillary Clinton will give up the power President Bush is taking on himself?"
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Unfortunately, there's a ratched effect on acquisition of power. It's one way and one way only.

Back when the hysterics were squealing for the Patriot Act, I asked people "Do you think President Hillary Clinton will give up the power President Bush is taking on himself?"

President Hillary will look a lot like President George. Political power is like a riptide.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Pretty soon the US (and Co) will be hiring ISIS to combat the real threat to the US.


Up until late last week, no US official had ever publicly mentioned the terrorist group known as the Khorasan. On Monday night, the US carried out unilateral airstrikes against the previously unknown group in northwest Syria.
And on Tuesday, US officials were describing the group as an imminent threat on par with or worse than the group calling itself the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), which has been the focus of US airstrikes for more than six weeks.
The key difference between ISIS and Khorasan: US intelligence believes Khorasan poses a threat to the US and its homeland, while it believes ISIS does not currently have the capability to carry out a large-scale attack on the US homeland.
Khorasan was involved in "imminent attack plotting" against the US and its interests along with Europe, the Pentagon said Tuesday. The group has been portrayed as a collection of top Al Qaeda officials from Central Asia who have been taking advantage of the chaos in Syria to establish training camps. In a statement from the White House, US President Barack Obama called them "seasoned" Al Qaeda operatives.
"The intelligence reports indicated that the Khorasan Group was in the final stages of plans to execute major attacks against Western targets and potentially the U.S. homeland," Lt. Gen. William Mayville, the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
That's in the Constitution, under Article I, Section 8, which starts "The Congress shall have Power. . ."

This is relevant to the current campaign against DOUCHE.

I maintain that while the President may, on his own authority, respond to imminent threats against the United States, only Congress can authorise "military action" (i.e., war) against an entity that is not presenting an imminent threat. For a definition of "imminent threat," I quote one of my law professors. . . "The Grim Reaper has to be on the backswing."

And I don't think DOUCHE presents an imminent threat to the United States.

Agree? Disagree? How come?

Since no current reliable definition of a place or a thing or some people called the United States exists it is terribly confusing to hazard an answer. Besides while the fifth column of Israeli operatives has enjoyed blanket immunity and continues to dictate American policy with US administration aid I don't think that even if ISIS could mount an attack on continental USA there would be anything left un-looted by the Sionist dogs.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
'The Congress Shall Have Power ... to Declare War' - The Atlantic
Today, the White House is once again signaling that war may be close at hand, though this time instead of striking Syria's dictator, there is talk of U.S. air strikes against ISIS, a radical Islamist group that Syria's dictator is currently fighting. Picking up on the hawkish shrieks of Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, The New York Times notes that "Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there," while Yahoo News reports that the White House has no plans to ask Congress for permission if it decides to start bombing.

That is scandalous, though many journalists don't seem to agree. "The White House maintains the president has the authority to act unilaterally in Syria and Iraq for now," Lauren Fox declared at U.S. News and World Report. "The War Powers Act gives the president 90 days to intervene militarily without congressional approval."

Incorrect! The War Powers Resolution does no such thing.
Today, the White House is once again signaling that war may be close at hand, though this time instead of striking Syria's dictator, there is talk of U.S. air strikes against ISIS, a radical Islamist group that Syria's dictator is currently fighting. Picking up on the hawkish shrieks of Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, The New York Times notes that "Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there," while Yahoo News reports that the White House has no plans to ask Congress for permission if it decides to start bombing.

That is scandalous, though many journalists don't seem to agree. "The White House maintains the president has the authority to act unilaterally in Syria and Iraq for now," Lauren Fox declared at U.S. News and World Report. "The War Powers Act gives the president 90 days to intervene militarily without congressional approval."

Incorrect! The War Powers Resolution does no such thing. Read it yourself:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The language is unambiguous. Absent a declaration of war or a statutory authorization from Congress, the president can't introduce the U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities save in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States."
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,435
7,003
113
Washington DC
Since no current reliable definition of a place or a thing or some people called the United States exists it is terribly confusing to hazard an answer.
Don't let that stop you from saying something stupid and off topic.

Besides while the fifth column of Israeli operatives has enjoyed blanket immunity and continues to dictate American policy with US administration aid I don't think that even if ISIS could mount an attack on continental USA there would be anything left un-looted by the Sionist dogs.
Good, you didn't.

Does your hobbyhorse ever get tired?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,435
7,003
113
Washington DC
Nothing. Which kinda implies that Congress don't think DOUCHE'll be invading Cape Cod anytime in the next week or so. And it's Congress's call.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
The United States, Canada, the UK, and Australia should formally declare war on ISIS.

That would quickly solve the problem of returning jihadists, as they could be charged with treason, and slapped in prison for a decade or three.........I would prefer hanging them from lamp posts on Yonge Street, but that's just me.

And that idiot down in the WH has teamed up with the countries that inspired and financed ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and is about to (once again) slap a whack of weapons and training on undependable Muslim recruits...........he obviously never read the definition of insanity.

AND yes, they should be going to Congress in the USA, as that is how their constitution works.

In Canada, executive power over military action rests solely in the hands of the gov't, and Mulcair and Pretty Boy should be told to do pee in their respective hats.
 
Last edited:

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
The United States, Canada, the UK, and Australia should formally declare war on ISIS.

That would quickly solve the problem of returning jihadists, as they could be charged with treason, and slapped in prison for a decade or three.........I would prefer hangiong them from lamp posts on Yonge Street, but that's just me.

And that idiot down in the WH has teamed up with the countries that INSPIRED ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and is about to (once again) slap a whack of weapons and training on undependable Muslim recruits...........he obviously never read the definition of insanity.

AND yes, they should be going to Congress in the USA, as that is how their constitution works.

In Canada, executive power over military action rests solely in the hands of the gov't, and Mulcair and Pretty Boy should be told to do pee in their respective hats.

Quick edit - was there then poof.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,910
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
And that idiot down in the WH has teamed up with the countries that inspired and financed ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Qatar
Ahhhhhhh so we do support their pipeline through Syria. What about the Iran,Iraq, Syria line that ISIS conveniently got in the way of? NFG?