Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
However right or wrong this may be, none of this changes anything I said.

I am baffled as to where the 'The President isn't CinC unless called into service by a DoW from Congress' idea comes from.

Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

Exactly. The rule wasn't written with a standing army in mind. When the President was not CinC, there was no military.

Now I understand that it can't work that way now, we really do need a standing army and I'm ok with the President being in charge of it. But he can not have a free hand, formal declaration of war needs to be required before he can use the military. The Iraq war shows just why. There has to be checks on power, there has to be red tape. Rightful war comes with a DoW; rightful war is not occupational. We weren't meant to be an empire, we weren't meant to be ruled by a king. We have to have checks and balances, the government must be kept under thumb.

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
Exactly. The rule wasn't written with a standing army in mind. When the President was not CinC, there was no military.

Congress was given the power to create a standing army.
So, I'm not sure what light your statement, above, is supposed to cast.

Now I understand that it can't work that way now, we really do need a standing army and I'm ok with the President being in charge of it. But he can not have a free hand, formal declaration of war needs to be required before he can use the military.

Even if this is true, it doesnt create a constitutional requirement limiting his position as CinC only to times where war is declared by Congress.

I ask again:
Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

The Iraq war shows just why. There has to be checks on power

There is. Congress creates and funds the military.

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

No, the make up for the army was not necessarily standing. At least in the wording. The Navy was meant to be standing.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

That's why Congress has to appropriate every 2 years for an army. While this can be done and maintain a standing army through omnibus legislation; the wording clearly indicates that it wasn't necessarily thinking of a standing army. Rather one that was used sporadically, called up when needed and dismissed when the job was done. When initially conceived, there was no standing army. It was called up out of the militia. The wording fits very well with that dynamic.

JMak · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Real ID Act, No Fly list, wiretaps, etc.

These are the result of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wrong! Try again.

But even so, you still fail. Because you failed to specify what about each constitutes expansion of government power. But you couldn't anyways because yuo deal in cliches rather than logical arguments.

Homeland security simply consolidated government agenices, there was n expansion of power resulting from it. The Patriot Act was merely a consolidation of existing authority. Military Commissions long preceded these two wars. "King george" by the way, and acting very monarchial, allowed his executive authority to administer these to be swallowed up by Congress resulting in new legislation. REAL ID, too, preceded both wars and, besides, represents no new power. No-fly lists were maintained before even 9/11. Wiretaps, too.

You have nothing but tired partisan rhetoric.

Plus spending what is it, a trillion or so on a war, setting up a puppet governmnet, occupying sovereign land, going to war without formal declaration, etc. How did the government not increase in size? More laws, more control, more surveillance. We need less of all these things, not more.

I wasn't responding to an argument about govt expanding in size, but to one about govt waging war to expand its power and military. Have you abandoned that now?

Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress.

:roll:

And congressional resolutions don't...?

The President for all intensive purposes fully and always controls the military. He can use it as he sees fit, that sounds like the power of a King; not that of a public servant.

You meant, "intents and purposes." But you're still wrong. The War Powers Act is what you're referring to, not the Constitution. The phrase declaration of war does not even appear in the Constitution.

Yes, Congress and the SCOTUS have some say in this. The President isn't to be king. In fact, I would say the President wasn't meant to be the most powerful political position in the US. The President is merely the Executive, the most powerful branch was to be Congress.

Hmmm, so the founders when contemplating the separation of powers didn't really desire co-equal branches, but a supreme legislative branch? LOL!!!

There must be friction between the 3 branches, there must be checks and balances.

So who/what checks the supreme legislative branch?

As it stands now, the President has well too much power; we weren't meant to be ruled by a king.

Were not you ignorant clown. If we were the President would not have sought congressional approval for war post-9/11 nor would he have acquiesced to judicial direction to pursue a legislative remedy to the military commissions issue nor would he have permitted elections to take place in 04 or 08.

Maybe the younger generation is just getting sick of bowing their heads to government.

Now this is funny considering that the younger voters overwhelmingly support Democrats.

Distrust the government, watch it and constrain it.

My sentiments exactly. But they don't lead me to the absurd conclusions you're posting about King George, a supreme legislature, etc.

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
No, the make up for the army was not necessarily standing. At least in the wording. The Navy was meant to be standing.

Nothing in the wording of the relevant clauses indicates any difference in the intended 'permanence' of the two forces. That the funding for the army must be revisited every two years was intended to, and in fact does, provide a check on the power of the CinC of that army.

"Standing army", BTW, describes a military force composed of full-time, career servicemen who do not disband during peacetime. This is the force that Congress was given the power to raise and maintain in the Constitution.

That's why Congress has to appropriate every 2 years for an army.

Yes. That wou;d be the "check" you're looking for.

And so, again, nothing here creates a constitutional requirement limiting his position as CinC only to times where war is declared by Congress.

I still ask:
Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

From the Constitution

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Power of Congress, Congress was given the power to declare war. The President can not make that declaration, only Congress can.

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
I still ask:
Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

As I have said, everything was written in a time of no standing army. The rhetoric of the Constitution does not suggest a standing army, but rather one that is called up. Thus in the time that the rules were written; when the army wasn't called up there wasn't an army thus no CinC. No one was CinC if the President wasn't for there was nothing to be CinC over.

JMak · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
But he can not have a free hand, formal declaration of war needs to be required before he can use the military.

Lets get to the bottom of this.

Please cite the specific constitutional provision that requires this?

Are you arguing that the President cannot exercise any authority to repel sudden attacks? The framers would explicitly disagree with you.

The Iraq war shows just why.

Huh?

You're arguing for a formal declaration in order to limit a President's authority. How the hell does an authorization to use military force not satisfy that check? Your argument is incoherent.

There has to be checks on power, there has to be red tape. Rightful war comes with a DoW; rightful war is not occupational. We weren't meant to be an empire, we weren't meant to be ruled by a king. We have to have checks and balances, the government must be kept under thumb.

Oh boy, here we go. Now we know that you have no argument, just some nonsensical rant against the war.

Case closed.

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
From the Constitution
Power of Congress, Congress was given the power to declare war. The President can not make that declaration, only Congress can.

Yes, we all know that.

What we are discussing here, however, is your assertion that the President is CinC only when called into service as such by a declaration of war by Congress.

Thus far, you've provided nothing that creates a constitutional limitation on The President's position as CinC to only times where war is declared by Congress.

Note that I still ask:
Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

JMak · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
From the Constitution

Power of Congress, Congress was given the power to declare war. The President can not make that declaration, only Congress can.

So when has a President declared war without a congressional declaration?

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
As I have said, everything was written in a time of no standing army. The rhetoric of the Constitution does not suggest a standing army, but rather one that is called up. Thus in the time that the rules were written; when the army wasn't called up there wasn't an army thus no CinC. No one was CinC if the President wasn't for there was nothing to be CinC over.

So... you cannot specify to whom, under your argument, the Constition grants the position of CinC when there is no DoW from congress -- other than the President, of course.
Right?

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
Yes, we all know that.

What we are discussing here, however, is your assertion that the President is CinC only when called into service as such by a declaration of war by Congress.

I was responding to a different post.

Goobieman said:
Thus far, you've provided nothing that creates a constitutional limitation on The President's position as CinC to only times where war is declared by Congress.

Note that I still ask:
Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

Do you not read anything I write? Just sorta restate the same thing. As I said, initially there wasn't a standing army. President was CinC when it was called up and when it was called up it was called up out of the State militia. When it wasn't called up, there wasn't an army to be CinC over. I've already acknowledged that things have changed and that we do now require a standing army. I also already acknowledged that the President is CinC of that standing army. You can still ask all you want, but the question has been answered multiple times.

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

JMak said:
So when has a President declared war without a congressional declaration?

Any war we've been in past WW II, which was the last time we officially declared war through Congress. All others have had "authorization" by Congress, but no formal declaration. Which I think to be folly, first off there is no mechanism in the Constitution for "authorization". Only Congress is allowed to declare war. There's no mechanism in place in the Constitution to allow for war without a Congressional declaration.

JMak · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
Any war we've been in past WW II, which was the last time we officially declared war through Congress. All others have had "authorization" by Congress, but no formal declaration. Which I think to be folly, first off there is no mechanism in the Constitution for "authorization". Only Congress is allowed to declare war. There's no mechanism in place in the Constitution to allow for war without a Congressional declaration.

So the Constitution empowers Congress to declare war.

Does the Constitution specify what form that declaration must take?

Of course not.

Class dismissed.

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
So... you cannot specify to whom, under your argument, the Constition grants the position of CinC when there is no DoW from congress -- other than the President, of course.
Right?

I really wasn't disagreeing with you on this point. My point was that initially there wasn't a standing army. So Congress was needed to call it up. But Congress is still the only entity which can issue a declaration of war and if we are to go to war, we need that declaration. "Authorization" as we have now gives well too much leniency to the President to conduct opperations as he sees fit. There has to be more than that. While Congress controls the purse strings, that has been well politicized. Congress doesn't choose to exercise that control because it's tantamount to political suicide and politicians are unwilling to do that even if it's for a just cause. Thus they must be given a mechanism by which they have to obey.

JMak · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
IBut Congress is still the only entity which can issue a declaration of war and if we are to go to war, we need that declaration. "Authorization" as we have now gives well too much leniency to the President to conduct opperations as he sees fit.

First, your argument then ain't with the constitutionality of Congress authorizing war because a) the Constitution doesn't specify what form sucha declaration should take; and b) the authorizations being granted by Congress serve as the check that you argue a formal declaration would serve as.

Second, even formal declarations of war didn't limit the President's ability to wage war. Congress, I don't think, has ever interfered with how a war was waged by a President, i.e., substitute their strategery for the President's.

While Congress controls the purse strings, that has been well politicized.

Well, of course it has. Politics is making political decisions.

Congress doesn't choose to exercise that control because it's tantamount to political suicide and politicians are unwilling to do that even if it's for a just cause. Thus they must be given a mechanism by which they have to obey.

Exercise what control?

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
Do you not read anything I write?

I dont read where you presented the article section and clause of the Constitution that specifies that:
- that A declaration of war is necessary before the President becomes the CinC'
- who, at the times when the President is not 'called into service' as CinC, the constititon then specifies as CinC.

As I said, initially there wasn't a standing army. President was CinC when it was called up and when it was called up it was called up out of the State militia.

Not so. The Continental Army, and the current standing army that grew from it, was created in place and in whole by Congress in June 1775 when ten companies of riflemen were authorized by a resolution of the Continental Congress. It was not comprised of state militia 'called up' to the task.

When it wasn't called up, there wasn't an army to be CinC over.

The standing army isnt 'called up' -- that term is reserved for federalizing the militia.
The Constitution uses the term "raise and support" when referring to the Army, terms distinct from that when referring to the militia.

I've already acknowledged that things have changed and that we do now require a standing army. I also already acknowledged that the President is CinC of that standing army.

So, the President, today, absent a DoW from Congress, is indeed, currently and presently the CinC of the US military.
Right?

Truth Detector · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
Any war we've been in past WW II, which was the last time we officially declared war through Congress. All others have had "authorization" by Congress, but no formal declaration. Which I think to be folly, first off there is no mechanism in the Constitution for "authorization". Only Congress is allowed to declare war. There's no mechanism in place in the Constitution to allow for war without a Congressional declaration.

I am bemused by this false notion that an "authorization to use force" is somehow different from a formal declaration of war and one is less constitutional than the other.

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
So, the President, today, absent a DoW from Congress, is indeed, currently and presently the CinC of the army.
Right?

Yes, but there has to be checks on what the President can use the military for. The Congress has to give a declaration in order to use the military against another sovereign. Otherwise, the President can use the military as he deems fit which is rather dangerous since it could create perpetual war. Declarations of War are good because they define enemies, winning conditions, etc. With a declaration, you have to have a plan; there has to be an end game. You can't rightfully go to war without a declaration of war and the only body authorized to declare war is the Congress.

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I am bemused by this false notion that an "authorization to use force" is somehow different from a formal declaration of war and one is less constitutional than the other.

Authorization to use force does not carry the same constraints as a declaration of war. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can "authorize use of force", it says that Congress can declare war.

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
Yes, but...

So, you then agree that your statement...

[It is] Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress. President is commander in chief when forces are called up. The only mechanism in the Constitution to call up is a declaration of war by Congress.

...is incorrect.
Right?

The Congress has to give a declaration in order to use the military against another sovereign.

Not at all so.
If you were correct, then, should the Russians nuke Congress, the President could not order a counter-strike.

JMak · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
Yes, but there has to be checks on what the President can use the military for. The Congress has to give a declaration in order to use the military against another sovereign. Otherwise, the President can use the military as he deems fit which is rather dangerous since it could create perpetual war. Declarations of War are good because they define enemies, winning conditions, etc. With a declaration, you have to have a plan; there has to be an end game. You can't rightfully go to war without a declaration of war and the only body authorized to declare war is the Congress.

So, an authorization is not a sufficient check because...??

Ikari · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
So, you then agree that your statement...

...is incorrect.
Right?

Not quite. As I stated, at the time it was written, there was no standing army. It did take Congress to call them up. That's the rhetoric of law. We have standing army now, which is more of a reason to constrain the ability of the government to use it.

Goobieman said:
Not at all so.
If you were correct, then, should the Russians nuke Congress, the President could not order a counter-strike.

Not sure you could nuke Congress. I mean, you could nuke the building itself; but you're not going to take out the politicians. Those guys are well protected and we would know of a strike against us with enough time to get them into the prepared bunkers and such. Still, the analogy is not without merit. What should be the given response to retaliation? Should it be unlimited? In that, say Congress is nuked. Does the President then authorized to take over Europe? Or should the response be kept to aggressor states till Congress can issue a declaration (if somehow all the people were destroyed, who takes over?)? A standing army makes things a bit more complicated, and definitely we shouldn't be on offensive wars and we shouldn't be occupying lands. I fear that just the "President is CinC" mantra gives well too much leeway to the President and how he can use the military. Declarations of war take thought, they're hard to pass, and they put into place constraints to specific conflict so that you can't use an "authorization" to march into whatever country you like. It must be constrained, if you want to go to war you must get said declaration from Congress.

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

Ikari said:
Not quite. As I stated, at the time it was written, there was no standing army.

The standing army has been in place since June 1775, 16 years before the Constitution was ratified -- thus, any argument you base on 'there was no standing army at the time' necessarily fails.

It did take Congress to call them up. That's the rhetoric of law.

Congress does not 'call up' the standing army.

We have standing army now...

Which, you agree, currently has the President as the CinC.

So, since there has been no DoW, you must then agree that there needs not be a DoW for the President to be the CinC.

Not sure you could nuke Congress. I mean, you could nuke the building itself; but you're not going to take out the politicians.

Bad form for arguing the given. In any case....
A SLBM fired off the coast takes 5 minutes to arrive in DC - far less time than necessary to secure Congress.
Thus, you can indeed take out Congress.

Still, the analogy is not without merit. What should be the given response to retaliation? Should it be unlimited? In that, say Congress is nuked. Does the President then authorized to take over Europe?

You're moving the goalposts.
You said that:

The Congress has to give a declaration in order to use the military against another sovereign.

A retallitory missile strike agiant the Russians is, without question, a use of the military against another sovereign. Under your agrument, such a retaliatory strike is impossible until such a time that Congress can be re-constituted and a DoW issued. In that time, the US can be obliterated -- and done so withouth fear of response.

So, do you or do you not still argue that the President MUST first wait for a DoW before using military force against another state?

Black Dog · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
The standing army has been in place since June 1775 -- thus, any argument you base on 'there was no standing army at the time' necessarily fails.

Not true. Then President John Adams disbanded the Continental Army in 1783-84. Shortly after the US Army was then formed.

So no, short periods in the beginning we had nothing but militia.

Goobieman said:
Congress does not 'call up' the standing army.

Very true. They do however fund the Army.

Goobieman said:
So, since there has been no DoW, you must then agree that there needs not be a DoW for the President to be the CinC.

Absolutely.

Goobieman said:
bad form for arguing the given. In any case....
A SLBM fired off the coast takes 5 minutes to arrive in DC - far less time than necessary to secure Congress.
Thus, you can indeed take out Congress.

Not really. In the last two hundred plus years, I don't think one day has passed where the whole congress was present at one time.

Goobieman said:
You're moving the goalposts.
Yuu said that:

"A retallitory missile strike agiant the Russians is, without question, a use of the military against another sovereign. Under your agrument, such a retaliatory strike is impossible until such a time that Congress can be re-constituted and a DoW issued. In that time, the US can be obliterated -- and done so withouth fear of response."

So, do you or do you not still argue that the President MUST first wait for a DoW before using military force against another state?

People have been arguing that for a long time. In every war we had a DOW we officially won. If you look at our record vs UN mandates etc our win record is dismal. If I remember correctly Desert Storm was the only clear victory.

Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

King Of The Dog Pound