"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Stuart &
Kathryn Fields" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , cavelamb himself
wrote:

But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the
first place?

Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war?

I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on what a declaration
of war
actually is, and is not.


Doug: I took your suggestion to learn more about the declaration of war
and
found an excellent, if a bit acerbic, description of the Declaration of
War
and Un declared Wars, and Authorized use of force. It seems that our
government has found ways around the intent of the authors of the
Constitution. The President has found a loop hole around the limits
placed
on his office. Good executive maneuvering but it opens too many doors for
abuse of power and negates some of the checks and balances designed into
our
Constitution. Ron Paul was right. We need to get back to a
Constitutional
government.

Perhaps you should do a little more digging, because you've missed the
point:
a declaration of war is a formal acknowledgement of a situation _that
already
exists_ -- see, for example, Franklin Roosevelt's speech on 8 Dec 1941 in
which he requests Congress to issue a declaration of war.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Evidently the issues being discussed are the basis for a continuing debate:
From Wickipedia:
"Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or
around September 11, 2001. Opponents of the uses of military force since
began to argue, chiefly, that the Iraq War was unconstitutional, because it
lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a
significantly sized demographic in the United States.

Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun
issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution that greatly increased American participation in the
Vietnam War, and the recent "Authorization of the Use of Military Force"
(AUMF) resolution that started the War in Iraq. Some question the legality
of these authorizations of force. Many who support declarations of war argue
that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case
to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional
role of the United States Congress.

Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that AUMFs
satisfy constitutional requirements and have an established historical
precedent (see Quasi-War). Furthermore, some have argued that the
constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with
broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National
Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al
Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want
to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk
about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties,
diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice.
And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only
to use military force.

The courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter[citation
needed], and in practice presidents have the power to commit forces with
congressional approval but without a declaration of war."

My point remains that the President has taken on power that could easily,
and in the case of secret prisons and torture, been severly abused. He can
authorize the use of military force without review or approval of Congress.
He can and has labelled individuals and groups of individuals as enemy
combatants and stripped them of due process. Naomi Wolf in her book The End
of America has shown the parallels with this shift of power to those
conditions enabling the move to a dictatorship experienced in Europe. There
needs to be a better defined set of checks and balances of Presidential
power.

Stu