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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (150074)	8/21/2002 1:08:57 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570940

It may not be clear to you but its clear to the people who interpret the Constitution. No Ted, it isn't. Yes, Tim it is.......maybe not to you but interpreters are clear about its intent. Its one of the major constitutional issues about the limits of presidential authority. No modern president has accepted the idea that use of military force requires congressional authorization and the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. No modern president may want to accept what the Constitution says but that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution stipulates that Congress and only Congress has the authority to declare war. The issue has never been totally settled mainly because the 3 branches of government have tried to avoid confrontation about it. The presidents ask for permision while saying they don't really have to, and congress usually gives it while the courts have so far stayed away from the issue. Like I said previously, the Constitutional intent was that Congress makes war; the President peace. Since WWII, Congress has not been wiling to declare war for fear of engaging us in an unpopular war. Out of default, the presidents have done the declaring. Its wrong and Congress needs to correct this abdication of responsibility. It was never the intent of the founding fathers for the President to usurp Congressional powers in this fashion. I'm not used to you going to original intent in constitutional interpretation. If you want to apply this consistantly you might have to go for a very different government then what we have today. BS......our present day gov't is in a accord with most elements of the Constituion, and certainly with the basic big stuff like federalism, the balance of power etc. As needed, we have made amendments to it to reflect the changes in our society over the past three hundred years.......but those amendments aren't many given the number of years. The fact that the Constitution has been so enduring is a testament to the forethought of its authors. I think the original expectation was that we would not have standing armies and that there would be a lot of deliberation before raising one and getting involved in conflicts overseas. The idea of a world with rapid transportation and with the US as the world's superpower was not anticipated by the founders. I suspect you may be right that there original intent included the idea that no non defensive use of force, or at least none of any consequence would happen without congressional sanction but they also apparently imageined that it would not happen without a formal declaration of war. If that is the original intent and original intent is the standard used in this case then every war since WWII has been unconstitutional. I think you are putting your own spin on it. True, they would not have envisioned the speed with which are culture moves. However, they fully intended that there be standing armies; armies for which the President would be Commander-in-Chief. They also envisioned militias which would be under the jurisdiction of the states or Congress, I can't remember which. There is little difference between what they envisioned and what exists today except for the magnitude. There is good reason for having Congress declare war instead of the president. And that is to prevent unpopular wars like Vietnam that divide the country. The Vietnamese war caused a major rift in this country and was never accepted by a significant portion of the population. I suspect this war on Iraq is probably running down the same track. There is an element of our population who forever uses an evil enemy to invoke fear and prompt this country into action with always the same argument........then, the enemy was the Communists, now its the terrorists. The argument goes on to suggest that if we don't take action, the world will go the way of the evil enemy, and they will come for us. That argument is probably as specious now as it was then. But fear is an effective motivator and that's how these good citizens get us into wars. Frankly, I'd rather the Congress decide........they provide a truer representation of the people than the President. ted