I'm talking about the president's not being allowed to declare war without Congressional consent and his getting around that by simply not declaring war and going to war anyway. If it's that easy to get around it why not trash the law altogether since it certainly isn't saving lives or hindering any president from doing what he has to do when he wants to do it regardles of what Congress thinks.

I think they still use the Constitution up in DC, in the wash room, on little spools.

Of course the current situation in Iraq was voted on in Congress and apporved by well over 95 percent of both parties.

But under the powers given the president he does not power as the commander in chief, since it was obvous that at times fast response would be requried of our military,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Of course the current situation in Iraq was voted on in Congress and apporved by well over 95 percent of both parties.

But under the powers given the president he does not power as the commander in chief, since it was obvous that at times fast response would be requried of our military,

---

I understand that the executive power of the president includes his right to move rapidly as commander in chief of the armed forces and take military action. My question is of what benefit is the law requiring a declaration of war if war can be waged without it? It comes across like a mere formalism instead of a law which restrains what it seems to appear to be restraining. In short, if that declaration requirement were to be deleted from the Constitution it would make little difference in foreign policy since wars are initiated regardless of it. Or am I missing something here?


BTW
Japan was criticized for waging war without a declaration of war--right?

Hitler... Enabling Act... anyone... no? Lol!