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: tejek who wrote (150085)	8/21/2002 9:19:10 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570976

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. If this is the case, why has the Supreme Court not ruled the action of these presidents unconstitutional? Surely, the Court would grant cert on this issue, were they asked.

To: tejek who wrote (150085)	8/21/2002 1:07:35 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1570976

but that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution stipulates that Congress and only Congress has the authority to declare war True, but it doesn't say you can't fight without a formal declaration of war (and in practice we always fight that way now). It just says that only congress has the power to make that declaration. I'm not arguing that you are wrong only that it isn't simple and easy different people interpret this area differently. The border between the presidents power as commander in chief and congresses to declare war is a fuzzy one. Its even fuzzier in this situation because congress did authorize the original intervention against Iraq and that conflict was never totally resolved or formally ended. A cease fire is by definition an agreement to stop fighting for now it is not a peace treaty or a declaration of the end of hostilities. 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. The argument that the hold world was going to go communist, and the argument that the whole world will join in any American terrorism are both properly considered specious arguments. However few people made the first and I've never heard anyone make the 2nd. They are just straw men for you to knock down. The argument that the communists where dangerous threat that had to be countered was a sound one and so is the argument that the terrorists are a dangerous threat that has to be countered. Tim