Where in the constitution does it mention

[DrDelirium]

an AUMF?

People are doing all sorts of partisan niggling over whether so-and-so violated some statute or not by meeting with some foreigner at some particular time, and whether somebody does or does not have secret evidence that this or that meeting involve illegal conspiracies, etc. But we know as a matter of public record that every president since Eisenhower has conducted aggressive military operations in and against nations we are not at war with. We know that congress has not once declared war in this period. We know that congress had the opportunity to declare war in every instance (ie, these were not emergencies in which time was so critical that a president had to order action in self defense).
Compared to these crimes, which are also crimes under international law, in which millions of people have been killed, all the current nonsense about meeting foreign agents is mere fluff. If you want Trump's head on a platter, his attacks on Syria will give it to you. Open and shut. Of course, then you'd have to take Obama's head, too. And Bush II's. And Clinton's. And Bush I's. And Carter's. And Reagan's. Well, okay, he's dead, why bother? Etc.
Why doesn't anyone do this? Obviously because they want their team to be free to commit the same crimes in future.

 

[Rightguide]

an AUMF?

People are doing all sorts of partisan niggling over whether so-and-so violated some statute or not by meeting with some foreigner at some particular time, and whether somebody does or does not have secret evidence that this or that meeting involve illegal conspiracies, etc. But we know as a matter of public record that every president since Eisenhower has conducted aggressive military operations in and against nations we are not at war with. We know that congress has not once declared war in this period. We know that congress had the opportunity to declare war in every instance (ie, these were not emergencies in which time was so critical that a president had to order action in self defense).
Compared to these crimes, which are also crimes under international law, in which millions of people have been killed, all the current nonsense about meeting foreign agents is mere fluff. If you want Trump's head on a platter, his attacks on Syria will give it to you. Open and shut. Of course, then you'd have to take Obama's head, too. And Bush II's. And Clinton's. And Bush I's. And Carter's. And Reagan's. Well, okay, he's dead, why bother? Etc.
Why doesn't anyone do this? Obviously because they want their team to be free to commit the same crimes in future.

The other part is, The Constitution does say the Congress must declare war, only that they have the power to do so. There'a difference in the AUMf and an actual declaration of war that places all the resources of the nation at the disposal of the Commander in Chief as the previous declarations did.

 

[DrDelirium]

The other part is, The Constitution does say the Congress must declare war, only that they have the power to do so. There'a difference in the AUMf and an actual declaration of war that places all the resources of the nation at the disposal of the Commander in Chief as the previous declarations did.

Are you arguing that the Constitution allows anyone other than Congress to declare war? Generally speaking, when the Constitution assigns a power to a branch of government or an office, it is agreed that that assignment excludes all other branches and offices from employing that power. Thus, the executive branch is well understood to be forbidden to convict ordinary criminals, as that power is clearly assigned to the judiciary.

Even if it's the case that anyone can declare war, nobody did. While there might be various ideas of what 'war' means, there can be little doubt that when the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces orders those forces to engage in armed hostilities with a foreign power on foreign soil, that this is an act of war. If this is something the president is allowed to do without any declaration of war, then there is little point in having a declaration of war mentioned in the Constitution at all. I think you will find that all the discussion of this provision of the Constitution was, in fact, designed to limit the ability of the president to conduct wars, and there's no indication anywhere that the Framers intended that congress could simply say, well, we aren't going to talk about war, but you can do anything you want with the nation's military. Quite the reverse.

 

[Rightguide]

Are you arguing that the Constitution allows anyone other than Congress to declare war? Generally speaking, when the Constitution assigns a power to a branch of government or an office, it is agreed that that assignment excludes all other branches and offices from employing that power. Thus, the executive branch is well understood to be forbidden to convict ordinary criminals, as that power is clearly assigned to the judiciary.

Even if it's the case that anyone can declare war, nobody did. While there might be various ideas of what 'war' means, there can be little doubt that when the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces orders those forces to engage in armed hostilities with a foreign power on foreign soil, that this is an act of war. If this is something the president is allowed to do without any declaration of war, then there is little point in having a declaration of war mentioned in the Constitution at all. I think you will find that all the discussion of this provision of the Constitution was, in fact, designed to limit the ability of the president to conduct wars, and there's no indication anywhere that the Framers intended that congress could simply say, well, we aren't going to talk about war, but you can do anything you want with the nation's military. Quite the reverse.

All I can tell you is the Constitution does not require Congress to declare war, only that it has the power to do so. I suggest you read the last two or three declarations, especially the last clause of the WWII declaration for a hint as to why Congress chooses not to declare war but to give authorization only:

"...and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

Those "resources" happen to be every life and piece of property in the country.

Our first foreign war, the Quasi-War conducted by John Adams, and the second, the First Barbar War conducted by Thomas Jefferson, were conducted without a formal declaration of war by the Congress. Both men were founding fathers totally familiar with the intent of the Constitution. War wasn't formally declared until the war of 1812.

 

[DrDelirium]

All I can tell you is the Constitution does not require Congress to declare war, only that it has the power to do so. I suggest you read the last two or three declarations, especially the last clause of the WWII declaration for a hint as to why Congress chooses not to declare war but to give authorization only:

"...and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

Those "resources" happen to be every life and piece of property in the country.

Our first foreign war, the Quasi-War conducted by John Adams, and the second, the First Barbar War conducted by Thomas Jefferson, were conducted without a formal declaration of war by the Congress. Both men were founding fathers totally familiar with the intent of the Constitution. War wasn't formally declared until the war of 1812.

There is no requirement that Congress use the declaration of WWII as a template, so that simply isn't an argument. As for previous undeclared wars, the core of that argument is that it has been done so it can be done again, but, Jefferson or not, this is exactly the idea that having a constitution is supposed to counter. If a law is made invalid by being violated, then I can't think of any law that has any validity. "Getting away with it" does not establish legal precedent even in the common law.

 

[Rightguide]

There is no requirement that Congress use the declaration of WWII as a template, so that simply isn't an argument. As for previous undeclared wars, the core of that argument is that it has been done so it can be done again, but, Jefferson or not, this is exactly the idea that having a constitution is supposed to counter. If a law is made invalid by being violated, then I can't think of any law that has any validity. "Getting away with it" does not establish legal precedent even in the common law.

Except you cannot show me where the Constitution "requires" Congress to declare war before hostilities take place.

The lives of Americans and United States of America itself could be destroyed before the debate even starts.

The declaration of WWI had the same language.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Except you cannot show me where the Constitution "requires" Congress to declare war before hostilities take place.

Nobody seems to get that.

Furthermore, is not a Congressional declaration of war itself an "authorization to use military force?" Thus, a rose by any other name...

If Congress has the specific authority to declare war, I'm pretty certain they have the authority to "declare" and characterize it any way they want, including the use of military force "short of" all out war. This is exactly what they have done, and it is patently legal.

 

[DrDelirium]

Except you cannot show me where the Constitution "requires" Congress to declare war before hostilities take place.

The lives of Americans and United States of America itself could be destroyed before the debate even starts.

The declaration of WWI had the same language.

Not 'before hostilities take place.' Before the United States initiates hostilities. Nobody thinks that foreign powers will wait for the US congress to declare war before they attack us. And it's simply not the case that any of the activities under the AUMF, let alone any of the military actions taken against, say, Panama or Iraq had such urgency that Congress could not have declared war had they wanted to. There was no danger of the US being destroyed, or of Americans being attacked.

 

[DrDelirium]

Nobody seems to get that.

Furthermore, is not a Congressional declaration of war itself an "authorization to use military force?" Thus, a rose by any other name...

If Congress has the specific authority to declare war, I'm pretty certain they have the authority to "declare" and characterize it any way they want, including the use of military force "short of" all out war. This is exactly what they have done, and it is patently legal.

This seems reasonable at first blush, but the question then becomes, if declaring war is specifically mentioned in the constitution, and if, as is the historical fact, there were broad public concerns, recently reflected in congress itself, about the untrammeled power of the president to get us into wars, why would congress choose not to use the language of the constitution if that's exactly what its intentions were?
It would seem to me that is precisely to avoid taking overt responsibility for exercising their constitutional powers, and some have taken this approach, saying, 'Well, I voted for the AUMF but I didn't vote for the occupation of Iraq and I didn't even have a clue that we would be fighting in Libya and Syria.' And this is possible because the AUMF is not a declaration of war, which involves an identified enemy, but something else altogether- the authorization to kill anyone anywhere if the executive deems them to be 'terrorists.'
If the AUMF were actually a declaration of war, it would not have been necessary to invent a whole new terminology to define 'enemy combatants' and there would be no question but that those individuals are covered under the Geneva Convention and similar protocols.
So, a declaration of war is indeed an authorization for the president to use military force, but the reverse is not the case. And this at least raises the question of whether the AUMF is constitutional.
To argue that it is constitutional is to argue that there is no intention in the constitution to restrict the ability of the president to wage war, and that congress can permanently abrogate its responsibilities under the constitution and transfer them to the executive. A parallel would be to say that judicial powers are not exclusive, and that congress can give the executive the right to conduct trials and apply penalty without recourse to the courts.

 

[phrodeau]

The military has their own judicial court system, completely separate from Article III.

 

[DrDelirium]

The military has their own judicial court system, completely separate from Article III.

Indeed. Whether or not that is constitutional is an entirely separate question, and if it is not, it would not be the first time that some branch of government did something unconstitutional for a long time.

 

[Rightguide]

Indeed. Whether or not that is constitutional is an entirely separate question, and if it is not, it would not be the first time that some branch of government did something unconstitutional for a long time.

The Military Court is established on the authority of the United States Congress' Art 1 Section 8 and Art III powers.

 

[Rightguide]

Nobody seems to get that.

Furthermore, is not a Congressional declaration of war itself an "authorization to use military force?" Thus, a rose by any other name...

If Congress has the specific authority to declare war, I'm pretty certain they have the authority to "declare" and characterize it any way they want, including the use of military force "short of" all out war. This is exactly what they have done, and it is patently legal.

Absolutely true.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This seems reasonable at first blush, but the question then becomes, if declaring war is specifically mentioned in the constitution, and if, as is the historical fact, there were broad public concerns, recently reflected in congress itself, about the untrammeled power of the president to get us into wars, why would congress choose not to use the language of the constitution if that's exactly what its intentions were?
It would seem to me that is precisely to avoid taking overt responsibility for exercising their constitutional powers, and some have taken this approach, saying, 'Well, I voted for the AUMF but I didn't vote for the occupation of Iraq and I didn't even have a clue that we would be fighting in Libya and Syria.' And this is possible because the AUMF is not a declaration of war, which involves an identified enemy, but something else altogether- the authorization to kill anyone anywhere if the executive deems them to be 'terrorists.'
If the AUMF were actually a declaration of war, it would not have been necessary to invent a whole new terminology to define 'enemy combatants' and there would be no question but that those individuals are covered under the Geneva Convention and similar protocols.
So, a declaration of war is indeed an authorization for the president to use military force, but the reverse is not the case. And this at least raises the question of whether the AUMF is constitutional.
To argue that it is constitutional is to argue that there is no intention in the constitution to restrict the ability of the president to wage war, and that congress can permanently abrogate its responsibilities under the constitution and transfer them to the executive. A parallel would be to say that judicial powers are not exclusive, and that congress can give the executive the right to conduct trials and apply penalty without recourse to the courts.

Well, if your analysis is correct (and it isn't), not even Congress would have the authority to respond to an attack on the United States with anything other than a formal declaration of war. It is irrational to think that the framers of the Constitution meant to deny Congress that discretion and force it into an either "not a shot to be fired" OR "all out WAR" legal formulation.

If you want Congress to be empowered to restrict the ability of the President to wage war, you could not do better than an AUMF. For one thing, it isn't "permanent." Ten prior AUMFs (almost a third to the total number of AUMFs) have included sunset provisions. Recent examples include the 1983 AUMF for Lebanon (18 months) and the 1993 AUMF for Somalia (approximately 5 months). The force that they authorized had to be funded with Congressional appropriations. Gee, maybe that's why they DIDN'T formally declare war. As it stands, they can pretty well shut things down whenever they want. If you're a Congressman surprised and outraged by the fighting in Iraq, Libya and Syria, you have a hell of a lot more ability to actually do something about it than the average man in the street. Attend your committee meeting considering the Defense Appropriations Bill and start cutting.

Think they could have done that at the height of World War II. Not so much. The declaration had already "abrogated" war making authority to the executive.

 

[Hypoxia]

I view it as a practical matter. If the nation faces an existential threat, it arouses popular support and dedicates its resources to win. Otherwise it's trivial, isn't it? Without support, we don't win. If it doesn't really matter, we don't win.

USA has been involved in long, un-winnable non-wars for 3/4 century now. We're still caught in that Korea "police action" thang. The last war we won was the declared WWII. Congress has since then obviously found nothing worth committing to.