PDA

View Full Version : Constitution, President, Congress' approval to go to war?




giskard
09-27-2007, 03:29 PM
Where in the Constitution does it say that the President must get a declaration of war from Congress before he can be commander-in-chief?

I need help in a discussion with a pro-war hawk.

randolphus maximus
09-27-2007, 03:43 PM
Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power ...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

The language is very specific.

But, the President is always the Commander in Chief, it's his enumerated power

OptionsTrader
09-27-2007, 03:49 PM
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html

noxagol
09-27-2007, 03:59 PM
If they didn't think the Congress should declare war before we go to war, why even put it in the Constitution.

giskard
09-27-2007, 10:34 PM
Here's his reply:

Ron Paul doesn't refuse to acknowledge that the
President is the "Commander in Chief". He is
Commander in Chief, *after Congress has declared war.*

Snip to discuss major error, in asterisks above...
WRONG: Do not pass Go, do not collect $200 but go
the the U.S. Constitution, instead of Monopoly Jail.

But, we might as well play monopoly as to discuss this
if you and Ron Paul insist on changing a semi-colon
into a comma, rather than heed the letter of the Law of
the Land, the Constitution. Here we go, with English 101,
as applied to our United States Consitution >>
>> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html <<
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
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. >>snip
>>
Please take due note of the semi-colon at the end of my blue hi-light above. The
primary and controlling phrase ends with the semi-colon. The semi-colon, just
like a period, allows no subsequent exceptions, as would be the case with a comma. While it is mostly liberal democrats who seek to change colons, semi-colons and periods into commas, Rep. Ron Paul demonstrates they have no
monopoly in trying to manipulate the constitution. Note "shall be" in gold hi-light.
Shall be means "shall," not may, if, when, but or after.
Even the 1973 War Powers Resolution (often refered to as the War Powers Act), is
as Public Law, subornitate to the constitution and a 30 year study of the WPR
shows it is largely a waste of time, that congress may have well been beating their meat, as passing WPR over Nixon's Veto. For a study of the WPR online, see >>

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html

foofighter20x
09-27-2007, 11:54 PM
The Federalist Papers No. 69 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm):


The President is to be the
"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 is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States."

In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: --
First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.
Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.
Third. The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, except those of impeachment. The governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President? All conspiracies and plots against the government, which have not been matured into actual treason, may be screened from punishment of every kind, by the interposition of the prerogative of pardoning. If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity. A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction. Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry? Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity? The better to judge of this matter, it will be necessary to recollect, that, by the proposed Constitution, the offense of treason is limited "to levying war upon the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"; and that by the laws of New York it is confined within similar bounds.
Fourth. The President can only adjourn the national legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment. The British monarch may prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament. The governor of New York may also prorogue the legislature of this State for a limited time; a power which, in certain situations, may be employed to very important purposes.

giskard
09-28-2007, 01:56 PM
Any comments on the 1973 war powers act?

giskard
09-29-2007, 11:29 AM
ttt
Anyone?

EvoPro
09-29-2007, 12:34 PM
Any comments on the 1973 war powers act?

Obviously, the war powers act was a waste of time since the constitution already implies only the congress can declare war. The original intent is explicit in the federalist papers.