Answer: None came about through the Constitutionally mandated Articles of War in the document.

Congress


Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.

Executive

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


It seems to me that the jabber coming from both side is predicated on the fact that they broke from the constitution and hence have given themselves wiggle room on both sides to point fingers...If Congress were to actually declare war again (in wars that we won incidentally)...it might allow us to go back to a "water's edge" principle with our foreign policy rather than this campaign war footing that seems to be perpetual now.

On to the question....should the next candidates for president pledge to go to Congress before he or she ;) commits troops and ask for an Article of War or nothing...(caveat since I think it will come up...rescue missions (for our troops or allied troops only) would fall into that grey area and for the purposes of a cleaner discussion, should be left off the table.)

Aren't you forgetting the War Powers Act? I'm not even sure they bother with that anymore. It sure would have been nice to have committment limits and regular reporting by the President to Congress.

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

...

SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

SEC. 5. (c)
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

...

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

For the purposes of this discussion...consider me an originalist.;)

For the purposes of this discussion...consider me an originalist.;)

Well, I believe the President should have the power to commit the Armed Forces without a declaration of war, but only for small committments (i.e., 1000 troops) and for short periods of time (30 days max). For anything else, Congress needs to declare. I definitely do not believe that the President should be able to make open-ended troop committments without an act of war. I believe that Bush should be in front of Congress today asking for a retroactive declaration.

small military excursions or single sorties shouldn't need authorization, but sending a whole freakin army overseas, well that's War and should need a Declaration.

I would tend to agree with the originalist History Professor but I'm not sure the world we live in today and the causes we use military forces for would all support an all out declaration of war. To me, a declaration of the state of war would mean the gloves are off, every weapon we have at our disposal would then be available to force the absolute and unconditional surrender of our enemy. It would also run the risk of broader conflicts as alliances kick in in the face of war rather than the police actions that allowed some of the cold war confrontations to take place.

I'm not sure if this is a question of procedure or a censure of the current situation in Iraq. If it is the latter, we had both advise and consent prior to beginning hostilities. that is undeniable. Would we have gotten a declaration of war? I don't know but on 9/12, had we blamed all Arab Muslim States openly and agressively, we probably could have gotten one in the broadest sense of the term. A broad political confrontation with limited but threatened, military interaction is what we have today. I think what is taking place today is a better fit for this world and this situation but it certainly leaves a divided political scene at home.

I would tend to agree with the originalist History Professor but I'm not sure the world we live in today and the causes we use military forces for would all support an all out declaration of war. To me, a declaration of the state of war would mean the gloves are off, every weapon we have at our disposal would then be available to force the absolute and unconditional surrender of our enemy. It would also run the risk of broader conflicts as alliances kick in in the face of war rather than the police actions that allowed some of the cold war confrontations to take place.

I'm not sure if this is a question of procedure or a censure of the current situation in Iraq. If it is the latter, we had both advise and consent prior to beginning hostilities. that is undeniable. Would we have gotten a declaration of war? I don't know but on 9/12, had we blamed all Arab Muslim States openly and agressively, we probably could have gotten one in the broadest sense of the term. A broad political confrontation with limited but threatened, military interaction is what we have today. I think what is taking place today is a better fit for this world and this situation but it certainly leaves a divided political scene at home.Why even bother with the Constitution if we ignore it whenever we find it convenient to do so? Declare war and fight it to win. Anything 'smaller' than that should be done via the UN. Don't like what the UN is doing, then declare war and fight it to win.

I'm still trying to figure out what purpose Congress actually serves nowadays.

"I'm still trying to figure out what purpose Congress actually serves nowadays."

they worked together a bit in between the witch hunts

When Congress is Republican and So is the Prez

they've done a pretty good imitation of being a lap dog.

besides either cowering from the admin or licking it's b@lls they have done a real fine job running this fine country into the dumps

Why even bother with the Constitution if we ignore it whenever we find it convenient to do so? Declare war and fight it to win. Anything 'smaller' than that should be done via the UN. Don't like what the UN is doing, then declare war and fight it to win.

I'm still trying to figure out what purpose Congress actually serves nowadays.

What purpose do you find the UN serves?

What purpose do you find the UN serves?

They seem to do some rather good humanitarian work in 3rd world countries that most of the other parts of the world would rather forget about.

They helped clean up the mess in Kosovo.

Did some good fighting during Korea.

Feed the poor and needy.

And so on and so forth...

You guys forget that the UN actually does some good work occassionally, and you'd rather just yell about "Food for oil" issues, or something like that.

You guys forget that the UN actually does some good work occassionally, and you'd rather just yell about "Food for oil" issues, or something like that.
...but Clinton....French surrender monkeys....Teddy Kennedy....umm...what's the RTP for the day again on this?

On to the question....should the next candidates for president pledge to go to Congress before he or she ;) commits troops and ask for an Article of War or nothing...(caveat since I think it will come up...rescue missions (for our troops or allied troops only) would fall into that grey area and for the purposes of a cleaner discussion, should be left off the table.)He or she should NEVER be allowed to cut taxes in wartime.

What purpose do you find the UN serves?What purpose do you find the Constitution serves?

makes a fine 'wipe'

What purpose do you find the Constitution serves?

Just like intelligence and the bible, it's best to pick what you like from the Constitution and ignore the rest.

What purpose do you find the Constitution serves?

YOu talk like you believe the Constitution was subverted in Iraq, I don't believe so. Congress was consulted and they consented. What we are involved in is a military action, I don't believe total war has been declared.

YOu talk like you believe the Constitution was subverted in Iraq, I don't believe so. Congress was consulted and they consented. What we are involved in is a military action, I don't believe total war has been declared.

At least you didn't call it a police action.......I'll give you that

What exactly are the different levels of war?

World War
Total War
Contained War
Regime Change War
Police Action War
War on Terrorism
War on Drugs
War, the band
War, the card game

At least you didn't call it a police action.......I'll give you that

What exactly are the different levels of war?

World War
Total War
Contained War
Regime Change War
Police Action War
War on Terrorism
War on Drugs
War, the card game


you forgot War the funk band.

you forgot War the funk band.

good one, just added it

now I got the song running through my head....funny how that happens sometimes

At least you didn't call it a police action.......I'll give you that

What exactly are the different levels of war?

World War
Total War
Contained War
Regime Change War
Police Action War
War on Terrorism
War on Drugs
War, the card game

That was what I maant by the changed world situation. the term "War" is carefully avoided in the poitical lead up to a conflict today. Our military actions have limited goals and limited commitment as to how far we are willing to go. War implies that the destruction of another government is the only possivle outcome. Iraq may be the closest to that since WW2 but even there, we have limited the amount of force we are willing to use. It is a changed world but still, the Constitutional restrictions have been met.

YOu talk like you believe the Constitution was subverted in Iraq, I don't believe so. Congress was consulted and they consented. What we are involved in is a military action, I don't believe total war has been declared.My question was in response to your original post which seemed to imply that we shouldn't bother with Congressional consent at all but rather just allow the President to commit forces wherever he sees fit unless it's a total, all out WAR.

I apologize if that is not the sentiment in your post.

Declare war and annihalate your enemy so totally that no one would ever think of attacking you. Fear is a powerful force. TMB is dead on with the 'water's edge' reference.

If we, the USA, do indeed represent all that is right and good, then we should not need worry about offending the sensibilities of the rest of the world.

That was what I maant by the changed world situation. the term "War" is carefully avoided in the poitical lead up to a conflict today. Our military actions have limited goals and limited commitment as to how far we are willing to go. War implies that the destruction of another government is the only possivle outcome. Iraq may be the closest to that since WW2 but even there, we have limited the amount of force we are willing to use. It is a changed world but still, the Constitutional restrictions have been met.

In no way has the constitutional requirements been meant...I thought you were a strict constructionist? Not to patronize but part of having principled beliefs is that you don't cast them off when it suits you. The reading to any strict construction is as follows...

The president goes to congress for a declaration of war...congress votes up or down, provides the money raises the necessary army...the President acts as commander in chief...

None of that has happened in this situation...you want to say you are having a war on terror, islamofascism, radical islam...whatever...and you say it is the battle for our lives our freedoms and our way of life...then you say...we have placed limitations on the amount of force we are willing to use...bullshiat to that. Play to win..or stay the hell home...play army with GI Joes. This is what is pissing me off about this...if this is the battle they say it is...then fight it like it is. You want to make parallels to WWII...then bring in the draft, take over some factories to build more weapons, armor and whatever it takes to win the thing...then go over there and win it. Tired of this half-way crap...its half-way crap that gets everyone into trouble EVERY TIME we try it.

In no way has the constitutional requirements been meant...I thought you were a strict constructionist? Not to patronize but part of having principled beliefs is that you don't cast them off when it suits you. The reading to any strict construction is as follows...

The president goes to congress for a declaration of war...congress votes up or down, provides the money raises the necessary army...the President acts as commander in chief...

None of that has happened in this situation...you want to say you are having a war on terror, islamofascism, radical islam...whatever...and you say it is the battle for our lives our freedoms and our way of life...then you say...we have placed limitations on the amount of force we are willing to use...bullshiat to that. Play to win..or stay the hell home...play army with GI Joes. This is what is pissing me off about this...if this is the battle they say it is...then fight it like it is. You want to make parallels to WWII...then bring in the draft, take over some factories to build more weapons, armor and whatever it takes to win the thing...then go over there and win it. Tired of this half-way crap...its half-way crap that gets everyone into trouble EVERY TIME we try it.From their POV, we never got into trouble. Korea, VN and all the other little wars in between were all worth while. To speak otherwise is to disparage the vets who fought in them and is unpatriotic to the point of being borderline treasonous.

In no way has the constitutional requirements been meant...I thought you were a strict constructionist? Not to patronize but part of having principled beliefs is that you don't cast them off when it suits you. The reading to any strict construction is as follows...

The president goes to congress for a declaration of war...congress votes up or down, provides the money raises the necessary army...the President acts as commander in chief...

None of that has happened in this situation...you want to say you are having a war on terror, islamofascism, radical islam...whatever...and you say it is the battle for our lives our freedoms and our way of life...then you say...we have placed limitations on the amount of force we are willing to use...bullshiat to that. Play to win..or stay the hell home...play army with GI Joes. This is what is pissing me off about this...if this is the battle they say it is...then fight it like it is. You want to make parallels to WWII...then bring in the draft, take over some factories to build more weapons, armor and whatever it takes to win the thing...then go over there and win it. Tired of this half-way crap...its half-way crap that gets everyone into trouble EVERY TIME we try it.

Don't go off on ME, I ain't got nuthihn' to do with it. The fact remains that what I described is the way it takes place and it isn't unconstitutional. We're all tired of half measures but there you are. That's how things work today.