I’ll even sum up the below
post for anyone who is interested but doesn’t have the patience
to read the whole thing.
1. Most examples of “undeclared wars” were either authorized by
Congress or were small-scale defensive measures by the
commander-in-chief that weren’t really wars. So no, we haven’t
always done this before.
2. A majority of the precedents that genuinely apply to what the
president is doing in Libya have taken place since 1950, not
exactly a period famous for strict enforcement of the Constitution.
Constitutional conservatives have opposed most of these
adventures.
3. Instead of citing evidence from the Constitutional
Convention, the Federalist Papers, or the state ratification
debates, most arguments for expansive presidential war powers cite
secondary sources to make claims that were frequently considered
and rejected in those early constitutional debates.
4. If you disagree with me, give me an example of such
evidence.
5. If we are not going to follow this method of interpreting the
Constitution, it then becomes difficult to cite originalism and
enumerated powers against Obamacare and other things.
bd57| 3.30.11 @ 4:47PM
Brief rejoinder ....
if conflict has been considered 'authorized' on less than a formal declaration of war in the past, then history does not tell us conflict is only authorized if there is a declaration of war.
The absolutist position permits no exceptions.
If there ARE exceptions, then the absolutist position fails - period.
Once exceptions are recognized, the question becomes whether a particular exercise of power fits within those exceptions.
W. James Antle III| 3.30.11 @ 5:52PM
But I've never taken the position you ascribe to me. I've specifically argued in the past that a congressional authorization of force satisfies the same constitutional requirement as a declaration of war:
http://spectator.org/blog/2011.....ional-wars
I've also acknowledged that the president has the power to repel attacks on the U.S. and order other limited defensive military operations without congressional authorization.
What I reject is the argument, made by Yoo and others, that the president can unilaterally attack a foreign country that poses no imminent danger to the U.S. without any congressional authorization. So I am in fact arguing that the president has exceeded his authority.
C Bowen| 3.30.11 @ 5:55PM
Why are we arguing about Yoo? He should be in a prison, or worse by the Nuremberg standard.
C Bowen| 3.30.11 @ 5:55PM
Wow--deep stuff, Traitorcon.
BD57| 3.30.11 @ 7:15PM
I'm wounded, C Bowen .... really, really wounded.
You should know, though, that believing insult is argument suggests you really don't do "thinking" very well.
C Bowen| 3.31.11 @ 7:18AM
You are so open with your contempt for Constitutionalists, I just assumed you called your wing the Traitorcons.
Kingofthenet| 3.30.11 @ 5:15PM
Well, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Libya
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Tripoli;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on Gaddafi.
W| 3.30.11 @ 9:21PM
K, you forgot to give credit to Country Joe and the Fish, as you know they did this song for Vietnam
Neo-libertarian| 3.31.11 @ 6:46AM
The real rational for this war came on the “say so” of the “war lord;” it was delayed because he was on his annual junket to the Ho Chi Minh Museum in North Viet Nam. (His tax exempt motor sailor ran into prevailing headwinds.) He travels there to sniff the seat of that famous AA gun and place a ceremonial band aid on his ass.