The Constitution doesn’t say war should be a big deal. Constitutionally speaking, I see no problem with half-assed operations not in the nation’s best interest. Obviously, I would certainly have moral and pragmatic objections, but nothing in the Constitution forbids such things.

As far as the Founders are concerned, if you look at the Wikipedia article you linked, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson engaged in Congressionally authorized military operations without a piece of paper that said ‘declaration of war.’ (“… to the shores of Tripoli” anyone?)

Anyway, again, thanks for the discussion. I’ll check back in a couple of days to see if you’ve replied.

Alas, I was off the net for a few days for Christmas and this has fallen off the front page. I doubt you will check back, but I think I’ve stated my viewpoint clearly, so I have little to add.

I still wonder why you don’t see the AUMF as the declaration of war I believe it is, and why you don’t believe it satisfies the Constitution. I will check this thread again over the next couple of days in case you do reply.

Just to clarify, the Constitution gives Congress the power to “declare war”. The words “declaration of war” appear nowhere in the Constitution. Also, the Constitution says nothing about the form declaring war should take, so Congress is free to decide the form. Do you disagree with any of that?

When Congress gives the President, who is commander in chief, the authority to use military force to achieve certain objectives, that to me is a declaration of war under the Constitution (though it may not be in international law, etc.). Constitutionally, I see absolutely no difference, and so I want to know why you see a difference. Where are you getting your information? What would you suggest I read that might make me reconsider?

Thanks for sharing your views on this.

I realize I failed to reply to a direct question: what do you believe constitutes a formal declaration of war

I will presume Wikipedia provides an agreeable toehold for discussion. There is a clear distinction made between formal declarations and mere authorizations. I want there to be no ambiguity, no need to appeal to any court over definitions, that the United States is waging war upon whoever we deem an existential enemy.

Integrity requires clarity.

I am not convinced the AUMF satisfies the Constitution. I see it as a legalistic work-around, an attempt to subvert the law by making a more convenient law. You may call them magic words, but if it would make no difference as you assert, why not put my preferred incantation atop the AUMF?

I do not have handy link for admiralty law and war. In general, a declaration defines who may be attacked upon the seas and how long a combatant may be allowed safe harbor before that harbor is subject to attack. Domestically, “acts of war” are boilerplate in many contracts. A declaration more specifically puts assets at risk.

War is supposed to be a big deal. AUMFs are a means to get the FedGov involved in half-assed stuff that is not clearly in the vital national interest. The Founders’ warnings against foreign entanglements have been disregarded.

We do not have the Constitution of a “superpower”. If the United States is going to be the world’s policeman, we should man up at home and Amend as required, empowering the Executive to send the Marines anywhere on a whim.

My objective is not necessarily to change the minds of the knee-jerk antiwar types. If they cannot be persuaded, perhaps the conflict in question is not a vital national interest. The people, too, are a check on Federal power.

At best here, I am unlikely to talk down any neocon imperial bloodlust 😉 but to hopefully show that my position is Constitutional and derived from thought and consideration. Tying back to the thread’s topic, Paul’s conception of the use of force is not some zany fringe wackjob position. It is closer to what the Founders had intended, and I am not afraid to restore our integrity to their vision.

War itself is commanded by the president and carried out by the troops, which happens regardless of the declaration. The declaration, which these days is an AUMF (or whatever other form Congress decides to use), legitimizes the war under the Constitution.

Second, you can hardly expect me to believe that a piece of paper with “Declaration of War” at the top would change the rhetoric and culture in this day. It’s pure wishful thinking to believe that the magic words “Declaration of War” would have changed all those knee-jerk anti-war types into pro-war folks, or anything like it.

Third, since we aren’t talking about the Constitution, what do you believe constitutes a formal declaration of war? What law sets out the rules for our government? And how does it affect admiralty law and contracts (do you have a link for that?)?

Lastly, an AUMF precedes a war, so it is the proposal, not living together. It is a formal commitment. I don’t know how God looks on it, but the US Constitution thinks it’s just peachy.

A formal declaration of war has significance in admiralty law, and affects performance of contracts domestically. It also shapes rhetoric and the culture. I suggest an AUMF is like living together and war is like marriage. Integrity requires formal commitment before G-d and the world.

All y’all:

I apologize for monopolizing the thread. I appreciate the opportunity to work out my thoughts. Maybe next year I will go back to posting at my own blog. 🙂

Paul’s material does not depend on those religious terms or explanations. His explanation is more directly political, that past US policy has interfered with governments in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

I agree that Islam, if it is faithfully followed, requires non-Muslims be converted, enslaved or killed. The trick is deciding which factions within Islam are that faithful.

If I had a genuinely Constitutional President, my charge would be to define the political aspect of Islam as incompatible with the Constitution. I suspect that you and I are in some agreement that factions in Islam are in a perpetual war with non-Muslims.

The enemy decides when the war starts and ends. And so, if there is a grave threat, let’s actually declare war against the people threatening us. There will be much wailing and gnashing about Crusades. So be it. Get 50%+1 of Congress to agree, and let’s go get ’em.

Half-assed and intermittently-covert attacks do not win the war. Enduring occupations and nation-building do not win, and may lose the war, by bankrupting the FedGov and by destroying substantial liberty in our homeland through clumsy responses to a shadowy enemy.

If Islam is a threat, our perpetual delaying action serves our enemy better than ourselves. It is not like the cold war, where superior economics allowed liberty to outlast tyranny. When the enemy is content with 8th-Century poverty, he cannot be starved into submission. Like Paul says, go strong, win and come home.

Watched the video. We all (you, me, and RP) seems to agree that 9/11 was a terrorist act. What I have learned in my recent study of Paul’s actual record is that he preferred a Constitutional “Letters of Marque” response, but voted for the AUMF to pursue Al-Q in Afghanistan.

That fact helps assuage my fear in regard to Iran (which is what everyone’s thinking about in this context). When presented with a credible threat and a sufficiently specific objective, Paul recognizes a duty to send the Marines. From what we know publicly now, Iran is very much like Iraq was, with a violent and crazy leader who has an incentive to greatly over-represent his military capability. If the intelligence came in that Iran was preparing for a real attack on the US, I assess that Paul would act to remove the threat. But we’re not there, and he is correct to call out warmongering.