actually, no. that is NOT perspective, as you claim.

there are 2 options.

1. Declare war, the president then wages it.
2. Authorize war and tell the president to decide and report back if he decides to wage it.

Congress took option 2. Period. That is indisputable.

The pure lies come from the apologists of the war - generally from the conservative camp - who don't want their precious war to be anything but right. So they claim that #2 is somehow the same as #1. Absurd on its face. Personally, I'm sick of it and have really the same kind of zero tolerance for that kind of garbage as I do for the left when they claim their own lies - like health care mandates are somehow "commerce"

That's the same as claiming that since Congress is allowed to count the # of people in your household every 10 years that they instead can tell the executive branch - "Well, you're AUTHORIZED to count the people for the census - just let us know if you DECIDE to.

This is a matter of perspective as they did pass acts authorize the use of force.

I agree they need to be more explicit about that in declaring war, if for no other reason then to avoid the constitutionally destructive ambiguity, and you have ever right to demand that they do so and refuses to recognized the legality of their war until such time that they declare it.

I mean if they are allowed to do things indirectly then its a slippery slope until they basically just start completely ignoring the the constitution. They need to clearly declare what their doing, and then set conditions, don't simply assume they have the power.

A bill needs to say something to the effect of: "We the United States Declare war on x country with the terms of peace being their meeting X terms or they are reduced to Y state."

But this is nitpicking on my part. lol Again sorry for the confusion. lol

Nah, no thanks. Sorry Monorprise - this organization will NEVER drop the issue, especially since it continues today, and will likely go on again in the future. Unlike political parties which are solely interested in garnering the most votes possible, our reputation is what we have, and we will continue to slam every single constitutional violation, without exception.

The Iraq war, and virtually the entire US foreign policy is a gross violation of the constitution - and to violate it and allow the executive branch to determine whether or not the country goes to war, well....that leads to highly immoral and unjust foreign policy.

If you really think that the Iraq war has any basis in constitutionality, or constitutional violations to start and continue it are something that should be kept hush hush, you really are on the wrong website. Seriously.

Well, actually the point is a little different. An aggressive war COULD be constitutional. Iraq and Afghanistan, however, are not. Why? Because there was no declaration of war from congress. All they did was transfer the war-declaring powers to the executive branch....abrogating their duty.

I agree. There was nothing unconstitutional about waging an aggressive war. However it is quite immoral to do so.

You are of course correct, I did miss-understand your post, and felt it a bit too “harshly worded” failing to convey the isolation between your policy views and that of your Constitutional aims.

In my post I was trying to address that in urging you to make the distinction more clear, and less “emotional”.

Of course in my initial post I failed to do that message. Ironically I failed in the very same respect I felt your answer short coming in. (guilty of my own crime). Recognizing this failure I attempted to edit the post as to better convey the message and request clarification on your part.

That took so long that you had already read and responded to my erroneous posts before my efforts was compete. As I said it is a bad habit.

I too am sorry I missed your distinction, and attempted to help correct a human failing I apartment share with you. (A potential lack of consistent diplomatic tact).

Sorry to have taken your time in this screw up, but I do stand behind the believe that our victory must necessary ultimately come from convening thoses now ignoring the limits of Constitutional law that it is in their best interest to follow that law.

That we are doing this by attempting to show and otherwise where necessary make it uneconomical for them to do otherwise.

And that ultimately this is really all a matter of our individual rights, yours and mine. To that end we must take the greatest care possible as to respect each-others rights.
That is the underlining motivating factor of our SHARED believe.

I ask your forgiveness for my mistake, and thank-you for taking the time to respond to me as to help correct it.

your entire comment string is based on a false assumption.

You claim that we should stick to the constitutional issues, but that's what I did in my initial comment. Sorry you missed that.

Sorry for my habit of refining my post after I initially posted them.

I was attempting to make the point that it would be wise if we suck to Constitutional issues, and respect policy differences.

If we are to live under a free Constitutional government everyone must see that constitution and its adherence in their interest.

That often means showing them the way of what would have to be done to have it legitimate.

In the case of the Iraq war from your position, you demand a Formal Declaration. I agree that it should be done clearly and unambiguously, instead of perhaps un-clearly as it may have been done in the uses of force authorization, and that this should be the case simply to avoid sections of our population questing its legitimacy on that grounds alone.

Enforcing a Constitution is more then simply following its "spirit" its letter must be adhered to. to the same end enforcing a constitution, which must be enforced by the people and other party's is not simply a matter of technical compliance (in your opinion). It must also be in the most open and transparent compliance possible.

yes they should have declared war clearly and unambiguously.

As I recall you also had a problem with the "conditional" aspect of the congressional uses of force authentication which I argued was a deceleration of war. Assuming the above dispute were resolved, the remaining dispute over whether or not congress has the power to declare war conditionally in a specific instants is still among us.

In such a situation If i held your position i would simply suggest that the constitution be amended to grant such authority clearly if that is your position.

I can accept that, just as I must accept and interpret any constitution that is a grant of powers in the most limited respect possible in-order to provide the most certainly in only utilizing the ceded rights.

Michael Boldin I am on the right website, just as I am in the strongest terms in agreement with your cause of the need for limited Constitutional government.

This is after all a matter of our individual rights, yours and mine. To that end we must take the greatest care possible as to respect each-others rights.

That means in no uncertainty terms not going beyond that power which we granted to our common government. This is the reason why we must apply only constitutional interpretation that grants from the people the fewest powers possible, in order to avoid the usurpation of rights the people did not willingly give up.

That is as i see it the core rational behind the 10th Amendment and the need for a strictly limited Constitutional government, read as to convey only the most finite of powers not liberally as to convey powers not necessarily intended and consented to.