Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Webster Groves who wrote (17889)	2/2/2002 6:33:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, if you ever studied law seriously, or history seriously, or political science seriously, my guess is that you'd understand that when interpreting "the Constitution" you don't just read the document itself, but the historical accretion of things that have glommed onto it over time. This isn't an ad hominem attack, it's an observation. Yes, I am a lawyer, with a JD and an L.L.M. History and poly sci undergrad, working on a history MA. Even the strictest of constructionists should recognize that if the US has been involved in a couple hundred armed conflicts without Congress actually declaring war, he's fighting a losing battle when arguing that every armed conflict requires a declaration of war. There wasn't even a declaration of war for the Civil War. It's not like this is new ground.