Were the Authors of the Federalist Papers Liars?

Right the President is the Commander and Chief, that does not mean that he can wage war without Congress. The power is shared between the two branches for good reason. He manages the military, i.e., he has the authority to determine everyday decisions during combat . He does not get to decide when actual war is appropriate. This gives the President some leeway when quick responses to foreign threats are necessary, but he has never had any authority to make those "quick responses" longterm military actions, i.e., war.

 

Isn't this completely consistent with what I clearly explained in the post to which you first responded? You make it sound as if I suggested something different! Is that a mistake or is it intentional?

You also make it sound as if the current war somehow does not comply with the Constitutional requirements. It does! The President has and is acting in accordance with the original joint resolution of Congress as well as the continued funding by Congress.

It's amazing to me that people keep suggesting or even insisting that the war was and is being prosecuted solely by the decison of the President and is contrary to Constitutional or statutory law! This is very wrong regardless how people feel about the merits of or the basis of the war.

 

Lots of us pay attention to the Constitution and we want it to be followed in all areas.

With respect to "separation of church and state" we might find agreement because it's certainly not in the Constitution and it has evolved to mean something much different than the original intent.

 

You claimed:

While this may be true, the constitution is not the end all be all of American law. The Constitution does not prescribe specific detailed information on how each branch is to address their duties in times of war, but the War Powers Act of 1973 does. As of yet it HAS NOT been declared unconstitutional and is therefore still a valid law. This law outlines in great detail how the respective branches are to perform their duties.

You're right the President is in compliance with H.J.Res.114, however have you read it lately? The entire basis for the joint resolution was on the misinformation of the Bush administration and faulty intelligence. Congress still has not declared war on Iraq, and we have already succeeded in removing the "Iraqui regime" and promoted the "emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime". The original tenents of the 1990 resolution have been met. Why are we still there? When are we going to learn that we cannot fight the civil wars of another country? Too many American soldiers have lost their lives in this unjust conflict. Bush took us there under false pretenses and now we are stuck in a quagmire of a mess. The President and his spin machine are browbeating Congress into supporting a war that is not even a war. A conflict we have no hope of "winning", no matter how long we stay. You cannot force democracy on a nation rife with internal power struggles. Latin America and decolonized Africa are a prime examples of such.

 

You still missed the points made in my previous posts such as those about the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, case law, etc. I made it very clear that the Constitution is a framework - a supreme framework - under which the Congress, the President, and the Court expand the details of governance.

You still want to deny the existence of, and if not that then the validity of, a valid joint resolutions of Congress that authorized the President to take the actions he has taken. Yes, indeed I have read the resolution lately, and have you? I ask because, among many other points, it includes these:

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;"

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;" [SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=+1] The War Powers Act, by the way, is cited in the subject joint resolution.

[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The reason to deny the validity of the resolution, I suspect, is very simple. It's called "blame". It's the same tactic Congress, and even many citizens, are using. If you can pretend you never had anything to do with it then you can say you it's not your fault; and, if it's obvious you did have something to do with it, then the next best thing is to claim you were deliberately mislead in some aspect of the justification. There are, of course, numerous other tactics being applied in full force to discredit the whole effort to accomplish exactly what the America citizens demanded be done just a mere five years. Such short memories we have!

The only reason for the change is that things haven't gone as smoothly, pleasantly, and quickly as everyone would like. Is our enemy correct to believe we have become a soft weak paper tiger? I promise you our military is not but our politicians and many of our citizenry seems to have fallen to such condition. If it had all be successfully completed by this date - something never promised but certainly hoped for - then the same complainers would be stepping up to take their share - and everyone else's share - of any credit. Since long term resolve is required, it's just easier to claim it was all illegal, unjust, and one man's fault.

You are correct that we can't "force democracy on a nation" but we can, have, and are helping Iraq establish representative government for themselves. While people are screaming that they should do more they actually have been every day and paying dearly for trying. It's a difficult challenge but it's a step in the right direction of the area. They're not perfect yet and neither are we. Sometimes there's success and sometimes not. Certainly the people of Iraq must want this success bad enough to fight for it and that's exactly what they've been doing. Of course, it's easier to "blame" them as well and throw them back to their own dogs and those of their neighbors most eager to see all our - us, our allies, and Iraq's - efforts fail.

Somehow, some people think all the problems will just go away if we quit now and go home. When the problem comes back to us again they'll be among the first to scream at the government - whomsoever is in charge at the time - for not foreseeing the problem and doing something about it before it happened and letting it be so costly to our people.
[/SIZE]

 

And you have completely missed my point altogether. No one is denying the joint resolutions. I have merely claimed that we have accomplished our "goals" outlined in said resolution, and that it is time to get out. We are still there and Congress has still not declared war on Iraq. Why? Because we cannot fight their civil war. History has proven this time and time again.....

I have never agreed with this war. It was ill planned, understaffed, and rife with corruption from the get go. We cannot change the past, but we would have been better off concentrating all of our efforts in the correct place to begin with. We will be dealing with the consequences of this mess for years to come, but there is nothing we can do aboutit now. We cannot, nor will we ever win.

 

I'm glad you realize the problems won't go away.

Do you really believe the whole problem is limited to Afghanistan? I sure don't!

Removing the former government of Iraq has helped the security of the USA. The view that it hasn't is based on the problems we've encountered since doing that. The view that it has is based on the very probable problems we would have encountered if we had not accomplished what we did.

How much money is China loaning us to fund the war and what are they charging us for it?

We individuals ultimately pay all the bills either directly or in the cost of goods and services. Business is good these days and the federal government is racking in lots of money.

It would be good if more of the population could more directly "feel" the cost of the war. It is too distant for most. I don't have a problem with a war tax if that's where the money would actually go. But, of course, the liberals would come up with a formula for the war tax whereby most people would pay little of it directly, they'd add on a bunch of unrelated programs, and like the telephone excise tax to fund the Spanish-American war they'd never stop collecting it.

"Police action" is a term we'll start hearing more, I suspect, because it sounds less like "war" and helps sell objection to it.

 

No, I didn't miss you point at all. It's clear where you're headed. You want to quit because it's difficult and you've deemed it hopeless.

Read the goals again! We haven't accomplished them all yet. We still have work to do. We shouldn't give up no matter how long it takes because, one way or another, we're going to end up fighting this enemy. We'd best continue our stand from where we are.

 

Nope, that's an illogical conclulsion!

It's just going to take longer than we thought and we need to stay until - however long that is - it's stable enough to move on to the next target unless, of course, by taking a stand the enemey decides it's just not worth fighting an opponent with such resolve and there is no significant target.

The converse, I suppose, is also true. The enemy likes that version much better.

 

I never wanted to start so quitting is irrelevant. We should have concentrated our efforts solely on al Qaeda from the start. Anyone intelligent enough to think things through could have forseen this mess from the start. I certainly did. It's not our war. It's not our country. It will only result in more American soldiers needlessly losing their lives. Let them fight their own civil war. Again history has proven that outside intervention in civil war leads nowhere. They must work out their internal power struggles on their own. If they don't do it now they certainly will once we leave the country.

 

:laugh: Your kidding right? No matter how long we stay in Iraq this will not happen.

 

The national debt has been building for generations and the most expensive contributor has been all the social programs most of which started with the bad "New Deal" era.

National defense - including war - is expensive but it's cheap compared to the consequences.

Regardless, the national debt as a raw number is misleading. As a percentage of gross national product it has been steadily decreasing.

1983 $208 billion deficit 6% GDP
1993 $255 billion deficit 3.9% GDP
2003 $374 billion deficit 3.5% GDP

It would be better if it was zero but, given the economy is doing well, it's not as bad as it once was.

 

"Cannot" is a word we'd best not dwell upon. Instead, we need to trust that, by God's blessing, we "Can" win this fight. I do understand and believe that!

The "next target" will most likely show itself by aggressive acts.

 

Nope, I'm deadly serious!