Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya - By Ron Paul

[Kuya]

You have a mental block.

With the exception of the 3rd amendment the president can do whatever the fuck he wants with the military regardless of whether war has been declared or not.

Nobody is denying that, at least according to what we're interpreting from "whatever the fuck he wants".

[aurik]

Which means if he wants to send the army into a war in Libya, he has every right to. Even if congress has not declared war.

[Kuya]

And that's debateable.

[aurik]

Not according to the constitution.

[Kuya]

Also debateable.

[aurik]

Citation needed.

[Kuya]

You want me to post a random person from the internet now? You were earlier mocking such a thing, and you previously never did such a thing when you were tossing accusations of "debateable".

[aurik]

No, I want you to cite from the constitution where it binds the President's sole authority over the military.

[Kuya]

No, I want you to cite from the constitution where it binds the President's sole authority over the military.

Gladly, article one, section eight, states that part of the enumarated powers of Congress includes the power to declare war. This means that a war is not technically legal until Congress has in fact declared that hostilities exist between two bodies.

Yet what you're arguing is in fact that the president has the power to declare war even though this power is explicitly granted to Congress. Why? It makes no difference if you declare war before actually engaging in hostilities or if you attack a country. In both instances you have declared war, or in the second instance you've engaged in an act of war which results in the same thing as having formally declared war in the first place.

You can't just say that the president has the power to wage war unto a country and that this does not amount to declaring war on said country via an act of war. It's petty word play.

Let's even quote wikipedia for a bit:

The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard.

Debateable.

[Demosthenes11]

so aurik, your stance is that the president is ok to do anything with the military as long as he doens't call it war?

[Kuya]

The problem is, declaring war has tecnically become anachronistic. Aurik isn't actually bringing up the essence of the debate.

If Japan attacks the US by surprise, a declaration of war is technically unnecessary, because the acts of Japan have brought the US into a state of war. This same logic is basically used in the War Powers Resolution, meaning that the president does not need inmediate authorization from Congress when the US is attacked. However, declaring war is not necessarily the same thing as being in a state of war by any other act. It is in the result, but not in the way one reaches the result. Declaring war does not necessarily imply that the war is being faught as a defensive war. You can declare war and be the offender.

But the problem is, the UN has declared that any war of aggression is technically illegal, making Congress declare a war of aggression illegal. Making it so the US can only ever be in a state of war if the US is attacked. This is assuming you believe any laws any international bodies make have any hold over the US, which is technically true because of the supremacy clause.

The issue then comes when you add preemptive war into the mix, since wars of aggresion are technically illegal. Pre-emptive war is justified as being legal because it is aimed at defense. But does one have to declare a pre-emptive war? If it is defensive, technically, you're not supposed to, but if it really is offensive, then you're just committing an offensive act of war with no declaration of war.

Thus, comes into question what the framers meant. Did they mean for a declaration of war to only mean offensive wars and not wars that the executive claims are defensive? What's more important? The letter of the law, or the spirit of the law? Were the framers literal or did they feel that war is not truly justified if the people do not consent to it, and a method of consent is via the most democratic body of the federal republic, this being Congress?

This is where the controversy comes from.

[aurik]

Gladly, article one, section eight, states that part of the enumarated powers of Congress includes the power to declare war. This means that a war is not technically legal until Congress has in fact declared that hostilities exist between two bodies.

Nothing in the constitution prevents the president from deploying troops into hostilities in the absence of war. You are conflating "war" with restrictions on how and when the military is used. Don't do that. It's incorrect.

[aurik]

so aurik, your stance is that the president is ok to do anything with the military as long as he doens't call it war?

Ding ding ding. In fact, the president is free to call it war all he wants, but it's not actually war (from a legal perspective) until congress declares it.

[Kuya]

Nothing in the constitution prevents the president from deploying troops into hostilities in the absence of war.

Once again, i am interpreting, but if i assumed correctly, then i agree. However, libya is not a case where there is absence of war.

[aurik]

You're misreading what I said.

In the absence of a declared war by congress, the president is still free to do whatever the fuck he pleases with the military, aside from quarter them by the 3rd amendment.

So to summarize:

When war is declared: president free to do whatever he wants with the military, including quartering soldiers where permitted by law
When war is not declared: president free to do whatever he wants with the military, except quartering soldiers.

[Kuya]

So you're saying that the president may use the military to attack another country, and he will never be at war until congress actually declares a war exists. In such a case, you are saying an act of war does not imply that war was declared.

[aurik]

Correct, the president is free to launch an attack on another country in the absence of a declaration of war.

[Demosthenes11]

so you are saying, aurik, that the constitution gives 1 man the right to engage in a wide variety of conflicts and "wars" (I mean not wars, but rough hostilities) with no branch able to check that power.

somehow I think you interpretation of the constitution is terrible.

You should take a linguistics course. This whole thing being tied around one word would make linguists' skin crawl. It's like bringing a dictionary definition into a debate.

[Day]

I always thought this was the whole point of a president basically. Samsonite. I was way off.

[aurik]

so you are saying, aurik, that the constitution gives 1 man the right to engage in a wide variety of conflicts and "wars" (I mean not wars, but rough hostilities) with no branch able to check that power.

Congress has the ability to check the power: they can impeach and they can cut off funding.

Also every 4 years the will of the people will come to bear on unpopular presidents.

(How many times has this been said?)