In article Q%bLi.100$Hb2.2@trndny07, "cncfixxer1" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article 4t8Li.5$R%1.0@trndny06, "cncfixxer1"
wrote:


A good example today is the "War". Check your Constriction and read
what
is required for a war to be declared. Yet we follow lock stepped because
the whole Iraq fiasco is called a "War" when it does not meet the
Constitutional criteria to be a legal war

Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the President to carry out military
operations against Iraq. What more do you want?

If the Constitution were followed we would never had Vietnam.

What does our Constitution say about war?

Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the
power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What
that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot
legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of
war against that nation from Congress.

This nonsense is based on a complete misunderstanding of what a declaration of
war is, and is not. It is not an authorization to wage war. It is nothing more
or less than a formal acknowledgment of a condition that _already_exists_.

Excerpts from President Roosevelt's address to the nation on 8 Dec 1941: "As
commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be
taken for our defense... Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact
that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. ... I
ask that Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by
Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States
and the Japanese empire."

Recognition of an already-existing condition.

And Roosevelt was acting perfectly within his Constitutional authority, in
directing the armed forces to respond to the attack BEFORE Congress issued the
declaration of war.

You could benefit from reading this:
http://abcdunlimited.com/liberty/rants/war.html

You could also benefit from reading the Constitution -- you might learn that
individual *states* are permitted to engage in war without the consent of
Congress. (Under limited circumstances, of course.)

The idea that the consent of Congress is required to engage in any act of war
is completely without Constitutional or historical support.

Geez Doug, thanks for pointing out my cable box is broke again. I hate it
when Congress declares an act of war and I miss it.

I never said they did. Obviously you didn't understand anything of what I
wrote above. Read it again, this time for comprehension.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.