Undeclared War and the Destruction of the Constitution »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 2 months ago"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." - James Madison
Read Full Story at tenthamendmentcenter.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 64
-
88%
KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago
Congress did give it's blessing to this war, ie, declare war, when on October 2, 2002 they approved the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists. A declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. In the United States there is no format required for declaration of war. The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the United States Constitution. Instead the Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to declare War," without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."
Reply-
100%
populist1 year, 2 months ago
actually, all that congress did was say to the president "you decide if we need to go to war, and let us know shortly after"
I guess YOU must be right and James Madison was wrong, huh?
"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." - James Madison
In any case includes times when congress tells him it's ok to do it.
But who cares about the rule of law anymore in this country???
Reply-
100%
ETproductions1 year, 2 months ago
Yeah, what would James Madison know anyway. He was just the chief architect and thinker behind the development of the Constitution.
And this Jefferson guy. Yeah, he wrote the Declaration of Independence and heavily influenced the shape of the Constitution.
But neither one of these guys could even get elected today. They don't look as presidential as Fred Thompson. And most people today can't even READ the stuff they wrote with any understanding, much less write it.
Reply
-
-
60%
ETproductions1 year, 2 months ago
KingOfTruthiness, The words of Thomas Jefferson & James Madison, two of the most influential framers of the Constitution, would be enough to convince you.
"As the executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."
- James Madison
Pretty clear.
"However, as the Supreme Court affirmed long ago, the Constitution does not permit one branch of government to delegate its powers to another branch. Thus, Congressional resolutions authorizing the President to decide whether or not to invade a foreign nation are null and void under the Constitution; leaving the President with the illegal dictatorial power to both declare and wage war."
Again, pretty clear.
Reply-
100%
populist1 year, 2 months ago
ET, you hit it on the head right there. War lovers like the "king" here don't care what the founders said, they don't care what the constitution says, they don't care about anything.
They clearly hate the Constitution and its principles of liberty - because it gets in the way of unbridled centralized power. They hate what the founders said because it gets in the way of their thirst for war.
Joe Stalin would've loved the "king"
Reply
-
-
100%
dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
Okey doke, please explain the link between Bush's war declaration letter and the $300,000,000 we're spending to kill thousands of our own.
Here is Bush's war declaration letter..
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03...
It outlines 3 complaints:
1) a continuing threat to the US by Iraq (we all know there was none).
2) involvement in 911 (we all know there was none).
3) and violated UN Security Resolutions.
Before you jump the UN bandwagon you better check a list of 91 other UN security resolutions that are not being complied with.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sec...
Reply-
100%
sinophil491 year, 2 months ago
Dunkirk -
Thanks for the link. What struck me were 2 phrases -"..based on information available to me.."
"..I determine that.."
I think this quite conclusively proves that it was Bush the Decider who drove this country into war. Congress easily jumped into the rolling bandwagon, because:
1) the Republicans were in control;
2) any dissenting Democrats were quickly and maliciously branded as cowards and traitors
3) the Republicans were extremely effective in creating an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and impending doom that the rush into this unjust, unjustified, and misjudged war became a national imperative.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
aniokly1 year, 2 months ago
I know, if this is an uncconstitutional war, and Congress did not pass the War Resolution, Impeach him. Impeach all of them, anyone who signed onto the Resolution. That is why they cannot impeach the President, because they would all be guilty. This is not President Bush's war, it is an American war. Democrats are lying to their supporters, and the rest of us know it.
Reply-
40%
populist1 year, 2 months ago
I agree - what holds back congress from impeachment is their complicity in violating the constitution.
Reply-
25%
not2needy1 year, 2 months ago
None of them are worth the salt that goes in their bread, they are all bed fellows and back scratchers. They all have an agenda when they are elected, and the good of the people of the USA isn't no.1 on their agenda, in fact we are probably very near the bottom, if on the list at all.
Reply -
80%
MajJohn1 year, 2 months ago
There is no complicity, congress approved by joint resolution the use of military force. I can't understand how Populist gets away with posting the same BS over and over. No laws were broken, how simple can this be? There is no violation of the constitution except in the minds of leftist delusional bloggers. Now we may be able to agree that some aspects of the war were poorly managed or that intelligence was lacking. This is fodder for a good discussion. But to go on and on again about who violated the constitution is pure crap. No one did! Congress is not forced to declare war in certain exact words, I wish they were, then the leftist loonies would be happy! Congress transferred nothing, they authorized the President to use any means...
Reply
-
-
100%
sinophil491 year, 2 months ago
This is Bush's War.
He fabricated evidence - Iraq-al Qaida alliance, the yellow cake purchase
He misinterpreted evidence - the aluminum tubes, the aerial photos of mobile labs
He ignored evidence - the Hans Blix investigation
He suppressed dissenting opinions - several papers that predicted the Sunni-Shia strife and the breakdown of the infrastructure
He scorned expert advice - disbanding the army, police and the Baathist party leaving no political or bureaucratic infrastructure.
Of the thousands of papers, data, reports, he cherry-picked the evidence he wanted and presented a 4 page summary to Congress to convince them to back him. Then branded any opposition as traitors and cowards.
He shaped the evidence presentation. He narrowed the discussion. He created the atmosphere of fear and compliance.
THIS IS BUSH'S WAR. This is his historical legacy. This is the scar he created on the American political system and psyche.
Reply
-
-
67%
david_nwpa1 year, 2 months ago
I disagree with the contention about using the UN as a justification for war. The United States Senate ratified the treaty that approves the UN as a governing body to mediate global conflicts. When the global conflicts become violent, as they usually do, the United States has consistently abided by the UN resolutions as per the treaty. In particular, we have sent troops to dangerous parts of the world at the behest of the UN.
Having said that, I am against being in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not so sure that if we left the region would devolve into chaos. It seems it already has and that we are merely intensifying matters. In other words, I understand the author's intentions and want the same peaceful resolution to the war, but see his arguments to that end as flawed reading of the Constitution.
Reply-
40%
populist1 year, 2 months ago
well, I agree and disagree. As far as the UN - it's unconstitutional because it creates a loophole that supercedes Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution....requiring congress to declare war.
Thus, that part of the treaty is unconstitutional, in and of itself.
Only the Congress has the power to delcare war, and they aren't authorized to transfer it anywhere else.
A transfer of the war declaring powers to the U.N. is as unconstitutional as a transfer of the war declaring powers to the president.
There's a reason that Congress has this power. The founders wanted the people, through their representatives, to decide the fate of war and peace for their country.
They didn't want a king, or any foreign body to do that.
Neither do I.
Reply-
100%
el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago
According to the Constitution, treaties signed by the President and ratified by Congress are the law of the land, no more or less so than the Constitution.
However, the Constitution doesn't address the case where a Treaty directly contradicts the Constitution. I would think a rational argument would be that the Supreme Court could declare the treaty null and void until a Constitutional Amendment authorizing the treaty be passed.
Nothing like this has ever happened in the nation's history. It's an interesting concept, and something to ponder.
Reply -
0%
fundelectionspublicly1 year, 2 months ago
Actually nothing in the UN treaty requires any member nation to contribute soldiers or material support ("blood" and "treasure" in UN speak) to support a security council resolution. Each member may volunateer to support a security council resolution with "blood" and/or "treasure" and the USA can only volunteer "blood" if the US congress has authorized it. Many security council resolution never result in any action because not enough members volunteer to enforce it.
Thus there is nothing unconstitutional about the UN treaty.
Reply
-
57%
Teagen1 year, 2 months ago
I agree with the first part.
On leaving. It sucks here but we cannot leave. We're not fighting a normal enemy. We're fighting the Iranians really. They're arming the insurgents. We pull out now and more than 1/2 the oil in this region falls into their hands. In this fight, there is not silver medal for coming in second. We need to act now.
Reply
-
-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 2 months ago
A person is put in jail for allegedly committing a crime. Exculpatory evidence after the trial proves the person is really not guilty. The Supreme Court has ruled that innocence is not necessarily a ticket out of jail for the convicted. Sounds absurd, right?
Use the same logic here. Just because part of a treaty is seemingly unconstitutional, does not make it so. Without a ruling from the US Supreme Court saying that the wars are unconstitutional, the Presidents will continue to wage them. It so happens that GW is using both the UN and this level of argument to wage war in the same manner his predecessors have done.
Reply -
75%
hamy1 year, 2 months ago
Remember though, you have to take into account the fact that congress was manipulated just like the American people.
I remember rhetoric around that time where Rumsfeld and Cheney were saying that anyone who spoke out against the war were traitors and terrorists and at the time, there was nothing worse to be called.
How could you go back to your constituants and tell them that you voted against the United States of America and 9-11, and baseball and apple pie?
You couldn't.
What about the faulty intelligence? What about that farce poor Colin Powell had to tap dance around in front of Congress?
This war is blamed squarely on this administration. Although I do see how Congress could be guilty of aiding them.
Reply -
100%
SS4541 year, 2 months ago
Looks like just about 55% of everything this REPUBLICON ADMINISTRATION has shoved up our A** is Not Legal.But what would one expect from a Gang of Toughs with a Limited Understanding of Anything,Their is a Message her Dont trust Southern REPUBLICONS!
Reply -
100%
spellbreak1 year, 2 months ago
This article is excellent. It is very clear and it deals with the Constitution and its interpretations by people who wrote it. Discussions of the powers of the Executive most often ignore or misstate these things.
Illiteracy is important. The Department of Education (see web site) National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) report of the 2003 survey of nearly 20,000 U.S. adults is stunning. In short, 95 per cent of high school grads could not correctly understand and answer simple questions about ordinary matters. 70 per cent of college grads couldn't and 60 per cent of grads in advanced degree programs or with such degrees couldn't do it.
It is no wonder that many, even most, people can not understand simple clear language even when it is explained.
Then there is "magical thinking" where merely changing words or symbols changes the act.(Declaring war can only be done by the Congress, but engaging in a "Police action" can be done by the executive.)
Reply -
68%
scott42611 year, 2 months ago
Excellent article! Good on you, populist, for bringing up the Constitution. If our checks and balances finally break (and we are close), then we have lost our freedom.
If we continue down the road we are currently on, God help us all!
Reply -
73%
icono11 year, 2 months ago
Great article. One all voters should read and study. The sad fact is that it appears that Congress is trying to side step the act of declaring war and thereby deflect criticism if things go bad. With that comes plausible denial of involvement if the war effort goes contrary to political trends which would put the Congress person's job in jeopardy. If the war effort goes well then they can soak in the limelight and thereby cut up the cake of popularity to get re-elected and stay in power.
Reply-
-
100%
sinophil491 year, 2 months ago
Codi - "They complain if it fails, they praise if it is successful."
Is that not how it's supposed to be? If Bush is successful, he deserves praise. If he fails, are we not all supposed to complain about his wrong decisions?
The problem w/ Bush is that he wants only praise whether he succeeds or not. If the war fails, he wants to blame the Congress, the lack of funding, the rise of the Democrats, the generals, Maliki, etc. etc. Never will he admit to his own stupid mistakes.
Reply
-
-
100%
sinophil491 year, 2 months ago
icono - Why are you putting onus on congress? It is the executive branch that is in charge of intelligence gathering - FBI, CIA, Pentagon, NSA. It is Bush that set in motion the wheels of war, that declared Iraq part of the axis of evil, that wrote the executive order to ship troops over, that asked congress to pass the resolution authorizing funding. The executive branch is in charge of the operations of the agencies. Congress has no resources or authority to determine the validity of the intelligence data and its interpretation.
It is Bush that wants it both ways. He wants his little battle playground. Then when things go wrong, he says he wants more money and cries that congress is obstructing the war and harming the troops if he doesn't get his way.
Reply
-
-
-
57%
FreeFormThinker1 year, 2 months ago
This post seems very opinionated and lacks historical accuracy and credibility. The United States has not formally declared war on any nation since WWII. This is due to the formation of a weak international governing body that has been evolving (EG: League of Nations; UN). Declaring war ties the country into obligations for a winner and a loser (think reparations and the destruction of the German economy in the interwar period) . In addition, the international community is designed to punish any aggressor nation or leader (Kosovo).
The article has several misleading, incorrect or just illogical statements. For example: "It is logical to assume that they never would have dreamed of a President with such powers..." It does not logically follow that the framers had no concept of a strong executive branch and yet place 'checks and balances' within the three party system.
I have limited space to type so please form your own opinions but verify the validity.
Reply-
43%
sinophil491 year, 2 months ago
Free - I agree that the framers probably did realize the dangers of an overbearing and dominant executive branch; THEREFORE, they placed checks and balances in the constitution. However, having put these walls in place, they probably could not foresee the day when an arrogant and power-hungry president like Bush could usurp so much power by circumventing these constitutional barriers.
I disagree that the article lacks accuracy and credibility. Strip away the rest of the article and leave the quotes from Jefferson and Madison. You still can discern the distinct intent of these presidents and framers to place the power of declaration of war in the hands of the people and out of the hands of an individual president.
That the US has not declared war in 66 years, yet has managed to WAGE war numerous times unfortunately leaves me with a sense of the constitution becoming irrelevant in some ways. How sad!!
Reply
-
-
64%
aceofspades11 year, 2 months ago
Freeform - are you saying by your neg that most in government do not know there is a Constitution Ave in D.C.?- no wonder they act so lost
Reply -
75%
innocent-bystander1 year, 2 months ago
Do you think Jefferson and Madison would approve of you using their words to silence others or do you think they would approve of everyone having an opinion and encourage you to discuss ideas based upon the idea's merits? It seems to me the founding fathers expected us to think and not be constricted by their apron strings. This isn't 1776.
Reply-
0%
populist1 year, 2 months ago
what a stupid comment. that's one of the worse i've ever seen.
How are Jefferson and Madison's words silencing others? Hard to argue against is much different than silencing.
Reply -
0%
dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
Hmmmm maybe you missed some history seems OUR Constitution are some of those "apron strings". Oh wait, you;re a rightie and YOU want to trash the Consititution ti fit the current agenda. I keep forgetting the right wing has a tendency to treat the Constitution like an extremely dynamic document that they can change at a moments notice to suit the current agenda and then switch it back again when it becomes too uncomfortable.
Reply
-
-
-
60%
dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
TWO events characterize the GOP and its concern for America, 9/11 and katrina. In both instances we have Bush on vacation and ignoring a threat to the country. 3000 people die in the worst terrorist attack in US history and where is georgie? Hiding. After being told about it a month before it happened , what did Georgie do? Go on vacation.
Katrina hits and we have a major US city washed off the map. Where's Bush? ON vacation again. In fact he chooses to attend a GOP fundraiser instead of respond, as a leader would, to the crisis in New orleans.
A third event can be added, evacuating US citizens from Lebanon. It took several days to organize begin doing that. The French evacuated MOST of the US citizens wantiong to get out. BUT Israel asked for more jet fuel, bombs and munitions, George had the stuff there within 24 hours.
How much more will it take to get thses guys out??
Reply -
100%
innocent-bystander1 year, 2 months ago
Populist, "Stupidest.. worst comment you've seen." Should this qualify you for the mensa society? Afraid to let your IQ show? If I had seen a smart comment in response or even a flicker of intelligence in your response then I would not be yawning right now at your arrogantly dullard response.
Yes. Jefferson and Madison were thinkers who made other people think. They encouraged people to think. They did not lawyer people in how right they were as you do. They did not pummel people over the head with namedropping "well Homer, Aristotle and Shakespear blah, blah, blah." If your argument is too weak in merit to stand then so be it. I do not think you, Populist, need to stand behind the founding fathers like a child. Speak your own mind.
Now I see Dunkirk with the shabby bootlicking propaganda, 'right wing blah blah..' I am a Green Party leftist who thinks as the founding fathers did, on my feet and not on my knees. They were also men like you. So act like it.
Reply -
100%
chevydog11 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm not sure whether the Declaration of War is universal, but it is a custom that has been followed by many countries over the years. Also ignored by many.
My understanding of the concept is that the Declaration of War must apply to two or more sovereign countries. So Great Britain could not have (don't think they did) declared war on the Boers in South Africa in the early 1900's. In a similar vein, don't think the US could declare war on Al Quaida.
This opens up a gigantic can of worms in relation to the protections of the Geneva Convention. If I'm not mistaken, the Convention assumed that a defined "state of war" existed.
So what can you do with a prisoner who is fighting for an organization that by your (and maybe any) definition is not a sovereign state? The problem's always been there, and there's never been a satisfactory resolution that I've heard of.
Reply
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - The Value of Money
- 1.0 - A New Cold War Looms
- 1.0 - School Choice: Really Free, Semi-Free, or Flee as Fast as You Can?
- 1.0 - Antiwar Radio: Scott Horton Interviews Glenn Greenwald
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
pawfoots
agentX- Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley- eugenegerard
ameliog- MarinerDan
Eagle_Eye- aframerindio
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
