Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ilaine who wrote (40011)	8/26/2002 3:16:01 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) of 281500

It's clear from looking at specific instances that Presidents have traditionally had significant leeway to engage in military conflicts without an express declaration of war, and that from time to time this has not sat well with Congress (VietNam is what immediately comes to mind.) I'm not as sure as you are that there is a "traditional" leeway, but there is no doubt we are going to hear much about that in the near term. My point is not that but even if the case can be made, the Bush administration would be wise not to use it. They need political cover. This won't provide it. As for the Vietnam reference, my impression was there was a vote, the Tonkin Gulf resolution (I know I'm misspelling it but am not going to chase it down) which there were only two negatives on. Additionally, there was some squabbling later that Johnson fudged some of the evidence to get the resolution through. But I don't recall the Johnson administration ever arguing it did not need one. I think the War Powers Act has to do with conflicts between Nixon and the Congress. Does anyone know anything more?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next