mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/18/86)
I am sending this to both news groups because I think it has significance in both. I ask that people continue to cross-post on this particular subject, but because of the cross postings to stick to the topic and not digress. I don't want to hear Reagan bashing or any other crap like that. If you do digress make appropriate changes to the heading thank you very much. I was talking with my father yesterday and he told me and interesting fact. (my father is a history teacher and he didn't realize this until recently) This fact is that the Constitutional Convention specifically took out the words "make war" and changed them to "declare war" for powers of congress. While giving the right to the President as Commander and Cheif the right to move forces around as he saw fit. Does this give the right to the president to make war? Some constitutional lawyers say yes. (They had a show on much like Meet the Press) One of the people who says yes is Ed Muskie. He said that is why they did not take Johnson to court over Vietnam. He and others like him felt that they would lose. That by specifically changing the words as they did that they granted the power to make war to the president. My personal belief is that they wanted to take that right away from the government altogether. I think this could be an interesting what could they have meant. So what do you people think? Does this give to much power to the President? I say yes that the making of war is something to be avoided at all costs. Brian Mahoney
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/19/86)
In article <1753@decwrl.DEC.COM>, mahoney@bartok.DEC writes: > > This fact is that the Constitutional Convention specifically took out the > words "make war" and changed them to "declare war" for powers of congress. > While giving the right to the President as Commander and Cheif the right to > move forces around as he saw fit. Does this give the right to the president > to make war? If the president could make war as s/he saw fit, then the power of the congress to "declare" war would be an empty one. If you apply the general constitutional principle that no branch of government should have absolute power in any one area without being checked by the other two branches, it becomes evident that the interpretation giving wide ranging powers to the president to wage acts of war has been an abuse of the constitution. My guess is that the war making powers given to the president were intended for emergencies where the president had to act in the interim period required for the congress to convene and deliberate. On the outside this should be thought of as a period of days. As to the distinction between "making" and "declaring" war, It seems to me that the constitution gave congress the option of declaring war without necessarily having to engage in hostilities. Thus a war could be declared, to be followed immediately by negotiations, mediation, etc. that could avert "comsummation" of the war declaration.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (03/19/86)
> > This fact is that the Constitutional Convention specifically took out the > words "make war" and changed them to "declare war" for powers of congress. > While giving the right to the President as Commander and Chief the right to > move forces around as he saw fit. Does this give the right to the president > to make war? > Some constitutional lawyers say yes. (They had a show on much like Meet the > Press) One of the people who says yes is Ed Muskie. He said that is why > they did not take Johnson to court over Vietnam. He and others like him > felt that they would lose. That by specifically changing the words as they did > that they granted the power to make war to the president. Sometime before the U.S. sent troops to Viet Nam, Congress granted the President the right to make "police actions". The idea was that sometimes the President would need to take action quickly without taking the time for Congress to approve it. However, the law didn't say how long the police action could last without the approval of Congress. The whole of the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam was a police action (under this definition); that is, Congress never officially declared war, but instead gave the President the right to wage war without the approval of congress. After the Viet Nam war, Congress amended the law on police actions to limit the length of time they could go on without congressional approval. All of this is really just legal mumbo-jumbo compared to the politics of the time. If a majority of representatives and senators had openly opposed sending U.S. troops to Viet Nam, it probably wouldn't have happened. Either that, or they would have been sent and then pulled back. However, at the time most members of Congress agreed with Johnson's and Nixon's policies in Southeast Asia. > > My personal belief is that they wanted to take that right away from the > government altogether. I think this could be an interesting what could they > have meant. So what do you people think? Does this give to much power to the > President? I say yes that the making of war is something to be avoided at all > costs. > > Brian Mahoney It used to be considered unthinkable to go to war against an enemy without declaring one's intentions. It seems likely that the writers of the Constitution didn't even consider who should have the right to decide to fight an undeclared war. I see no evidence that the writers of the Constitution didn't want the government to have the right to wage war. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/19/86)
> > I am sending this to both news groups because I think it has significance > in both. I ask that people continue to cross-post on this particular > subject, but because of the cross postings to stick to the topic and not > digress. I don't want to hear Reagan bashing or any other crap like that. > If you do digress make appropriate changes to the heading thank you very much. > > I was talking with my father yesterday and he told me and interesting fact. > (my father is a history teacher and he didn't realize this until recently) > This fact is that the Constitutional Convention specifically took out the > words "make war" and changed them to "declare war" for powers of congress. > While giving the right to the President as Commander and Cheif the right to > move forces around as he saw fit. Does this give the right to the president > to make war? > Some constitutional lawyers say yes. (They had a show on much like Meet the > Press) One of the people who says yes is Ed Muskie. He said that is why > they did not take Johnson to court over Vietnam. He and others like him > felt that they would lose. That by specifically changing the words as they did > that they granted the power to make war to the president. > > My personal belief is that they wanted to take that right away from the > government altogether. I think this could be an interesting what could they > have meant. So what do you people think? Does this give to much power to the > President? I say yes that the making of war is something to be avoided at all > costs. > > Brian Mahoney At the time of the Constitutional Convention, it could take several months for Congress to convene in emergency session. That's no longer the case. I suspect the current law requiring Congressional approval for military actions beyond the specified number of days would be applauded by the Founding Fathers because it prevents the President from engaging in a long war, but still provides the ability for the Commander-in-Chief to take immediate action where delay could be a threat to national security.
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (03/20/86)
In article <106@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >If the president could make war as s/he saw fit, then the power of the >congress to "declare" war would be an empty one. [...] My >guess is that the war making powers given to the president were intended >for emergencies where the president had to act in the interim period >required for the congress to convene and deliberate. On the outside this >should be thought of as a period of days. I doubt that the intended Presidential powers are even that much. Rather, the division of labor with regard to war (Congress declares it, the President administers its execution) is plausibly viewed as a simple and direct extension of the principle that Congress is to make policy and the Adminstration is to execute it. Congress has been all to wimpy about reclaiming its rightful authority in matters of war and peace. It should start in spirit by denying aid to the eminently undeserving Contras. --Paul Torek torek@umich
elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) (03/20/86)
> ... > This fact is that the Constitutional Convention specifically took out the > words "make war" and changed them to "declare war" for powers of congress. > While giving the right to the President as Commander and Cheif the right to > move forces around as he saw fit. Does this give the right to the president > to make war? Personally, I've no idea whether it does or not. However, there are occasions when the delay needed to "declare war" would be sufficient to give an 'enemy' an unavoidable win. Yet, at the same time, giving the president the power to 'move forces at will' also gives him the power to 'cause' a war. Regardless of the desires of the congress. > > My personal belief is that they wanted to take that right away from the > government altogether. I think this could be an interesting what could they > have meant. So what do you people think? Does this give to much power to the > President? I say yes that the making of war is something to be avoided at all > costs. > > Brian Mahoney There are certain results of avoiding war at _ALL_ costs that I personally would find much too expensive. My current feeling is that allowing the president to 'move forces at will', while requiring an act of congress to 'declare war' is a reasonable compromise between being able to act fast when needed, and yet limiting the power of the president such that he is not a 'monarch'. (i.e. accountable only to himself and god.). E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress, Inc. Virginia
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (03/21/86)
> In article <1753@decwrl.DEC.COM>, mahoney@bartok.DEC writes: > > > > This fact is that the Constitutional Convention specifically took out the > > words "make war" and changed them to "declare war" for powers of congress. > > While giving the right to the President as Commander and Cheif the right to > > move forces around as he saw fit. Does this give the right to the president > > to make war? > > If the president could make war as s/he saw fit, then the power of the > congress to "declare" war would be an empty one. If you apply the general > constitutional principle that no branch of government should have absolute > power in any one area without being checked by the other two branches, it > becomes evident that the interpretation giving wide ranging powers to the > president to wage acts of war has been an abuse of the constitution. My > guess is that the war making powers given to the president were intended > for emergencies where the president had to act in the interim period > required for the congress to convene and deliberate. On the outside this > should be thought of as a period of days. > > As to the distinction between "making" and "declaring" war, It seems to > me that the constitution gave congress the option of declaring war without > necessarily having to engage in hostilities. Thus a war could be declared, > to be followed immediately by negotiations, mediation, etc. that could > avert "comsummation" of the war declaration. I think that the legislative branch of the goverment must approve any expenditures of the executive brach, thus if the president would 'make' a war without the legislative consent, he would not be able to spend any money for this purpose. At the time when the constitution was written, the permanent US armed forces were able to perform some small operations, like Indian wars, but were insufficient for any major conflict. Thus the power of the president was adequately constrained. I think that we cannot reasonable expect that the constitution from this time will be intentionally adequate at present. If indeed the current check mechanism is by chance sufficient (i.e. the president has much larger power than expected, but also the current reality requires this larger power) than the constitution should not be changed. I understand that the Congress may pass laws to forbid the president to undertake selected classes of belligerent acts, and this check on the executive is in my opinion sufficient. (*This is not an opinion of an expert*) Piotr Berman
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (03/24/86)
In article <440@netexa.UUCP> elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) writes: > > Personally, I've no idea whether it does or not. However, there > are occasions when the delay needed to "declare war" would be > sufficient to give an 'enemy' an unavoidable win. Yet, at the > same time, giving the president the power to 'move forces at will' > also gives him the power to 'cause' a war. Regardless of the > desires of the congress. > It seems to me that this is mixing up delay with trust of majority rule. It is possible for a system to be set up that would allow Congress to decide as fast as the President. Simply provide all Congresspeople and Senators with a black box, an inhibit switch, sum all of the Congress settings, if half are set on, and if half of the Senates are set on, the President would be allowed to fire nukes or whatever. All of the Congress could have real time connections to whatever decision making info the President has. This puts all decisions in parallel not in series so the time required would be as fast as a single decision. I haven't the slightest idea as to what this would actually do to the war making decision process. It would be an interesting experiment to try it out. Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (03/24/86)
Has it really been *that* long since Vietnam???
This was a big-time subject during 'Nam; Congress debated it at
length, and eventually passed a law limiting the President's
authority to wage war without Congressional consent. If my memory
serves me (memory's the first thing to go when you get old), it
was called the War Powers Act. Check it out.
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!dougshad@teldata.UUCP (Warren N. Shadwick) (03/25/86)
The original Constitutional intent was not to have standing armies -- despised and feared by the framers. That is why no military appropriations bill can have effect for more than two years. When needed for war, the Army of the United States was formed (Article I, Section 8) by Congress calling up the state militias (see wording of the 2nd Amendment) and the necessary appropriations passed. The President was to be Commander-in-Chief only when the AUS had been formed; otherwise, he had no army. This was the original check and balance of power built into the Constitution. -- Warren N. Shadwick ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!shad
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (03/26/86)
The postings on this topic seem oblivious of the existence of the
War Powers Act, which significantly affects the relationship between
the President and the Congress in this regard.
As a practical matter the Constitutional provision regarding the
power of the Congress to "declare war" has been relatively meaningless
since the US signed the United Nations Charter. The latter outlaws any
use of force except self-defense or as part of either UN or regional
multi-national peacekeeping force. None of these exceptions are likely
to occur in circumstances which have in the past been deemed to
require a declaration of war -- or to even appropriately call for one.
Tom Schlesinger
Plymouth State College
Plymouth, N.H. 03264
decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tosmahoney@bartok.DEC (03/28/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 24-MAR-1986 20:56--------------------- >Has it really been *that* long since Vietnam??? > >This was a big-time subject during 'Nam; Congress debated it at >length, and eventually passed a law limiting the President's >authority to wage war without Congressional consent. If my memory >serves me (memory's the first thing to go when you get old), it >was called the War Powers Act. Check it out. >-- >Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug The whole point is that the law maybe unconstitutional. That is why I brought it up. Brian Mahoney
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/29/86)
In article <1107@terak.UUCP> doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: >... If my memory serves me (memory's the first thing to go when you >get old), it was called the War Powers Act. Check it out. And if my memory serves me (I'm 22 already, so maybe it's gone), this law is now essentially worthless for restricting the executive because of the Supreme Court ruling on legislative vetoes. -- David desJardins
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/29/86)
In article <178@psc70.UUCP> tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) writes: > As a practical matter the Constitutional provision regarding the >power of the Congress to "declare war" has been relatively meaningless >since the US signed the United Nations Charter. The latter outlaws any >use of force except self-defense or as part of either UN or regional >multi-national peacekeeping force. None of these exceptions are likely >to occur in circumstances which have in the past been deemed to >require a declaration of war -- or to even appropriately call for one. Pearl Harbor doesn't qualify as self-defense? Seriously, the point is that in recent history the US has not entered into a declared war except in situations were it was able to claim that it was acting in self-defense. Whether this was accurate or not is beside the point--if the American people accept that it qualifies as self-defense then the UN Charter is not going to be interpreted as a restriction on the US in that circumstance. -- David desJardins
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/31/86)
>/* Written 1:17 pm Mar 24, 1986 by foy@aero.ARPA in ccvaxa:net.legal */ >It is possible for a system to be set up that would allow Congress to >decide as fast as the President. > >Simply provide all Congresspeople and Senators with a black box, an inhibit >switch, sum all of the Congress settings, if half are set on, and if half of >the Senates are set on, the President would be allowed to fire nukes or >whatever. All of the Congress could have real time connections to whatever >decision making info the President has. `Simply'! How are the signals supposed to be relayed back to whatever does the summing? Through a nationwide, secure, real-time communications system? Wireless? My jaw drops - you might say it jams open. Real-time connections to decision making info - and how do you make all of Congress study that info? Not just the last few minutes, but all the previous few weeks of reports on submarine movement, activity at missile silos, troop deployment, etc. How many Congressmen would be willing to make such a decision, without trying to make a few phone calls (to other Congressmen? to the President? to the Minority leader? to the newspapers?) first? This discussion is moving into the realm of net.arms-d Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. USEnet: ...!ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms