Except for the fact that we issued a war authorization to invade Iraq, which is just fine and meets the Constitutional requirements.
It's not a declaration, it's authorization to use military force but at no point did we declare war.
You're right. The Constitution doesn't specify any other formats.
The Constitution doesn't specify ANY format.
Argument done.
You lost, I'm bored with it.
You're "bored" because you can't defend your position. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". That's what it says, there are no other formats given thus no other format is open to the Congress. Official declaration of war is all they are given to do in terms of authorizations for it. There is no other allowed option, they declare war which is an official declaration of war; the last of which was issued during WW II. You have no concept of history if you keep thinking that we've declared all our wars, Vietnam, Korean, Iraq, etc. The last time war was officially declared was WW II and that's historic fact. You can run around chasing your tail as much as you want, but you can't dispute history no matter how much you'd like to rewrite it.
You need to learn how to read. Start with the Tenth Amendment.
I'm a physicist, I know how to read. I know what the Constitution says and what it means. You're trying to expand powers to the government to justify a war we should never have engaged in. You big government types are dangerous, you'll grant as much power as necessary to the government to engage in improper global management. The founders warned us well against the type of actions you call for. Global meddling, exerting our control over others and dictating terms of existence to the world. That sort of megalomaniac attitude will never drive the Republic to a good place. Just big brother fascism, which seems to be what you favor.
You haven't refuted it. The purpose of reserving the power to declare war to the Congress was to ensure the People's wishes were being followed and that we weren't being dragged into a war by a monomaniacal despot. That purpose was served by Congress's actions prior to our invasion of Iraq.
No, it was to separate power so that the President, who is Commander in Chief, could not declare war himself and act as a king with the nation's military. Of course, in the end there is supposed to be some amount of control over Congress by the People and the States, but in reality that control is extremely limited and lessened through pointless partisanship and blind allegiance to parties.
You could try reading the Federalist Papers sometime. It explains a lot of the Constitution you clearly don't understand at all.
I have read them, along with the Anti-Federalist papers (the actual federalists). I've also read the complete letters and correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and John and Abigail Adams. I'm well read in the writings of the founders and political philosophy. Maybe you should try reading more instead of just grasping to one source pretending it says something it doesn't.
You have a truly misguided view on my view of the Constitution. However, I understand the document, you, and your president, do not.
HAHA, my President. What an ignorant and immature argument. Prove he's my President or let this shine as an example of your lies. You have a truly misguided view on my view of the Constitution and the course this Republic should take.
Argument over.
Won.
Done.
Don't bother to respond further.
It's big of you to admit your defeat.
