Skip to main content

View Diary: Repeal AUMF, the blank check for war (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The US Constitution does NOT... (0+ / 0-)

    ... give 'war powers' to a president.  That would make him an elected dictator.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 11-16:
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    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;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Remember, we did not have a standing army when the Constitution was written; that didn't happen until after the War of 1812.  [I could go into my genealogy research and ancestors in the Rev. War and microfilm copies of the record of the latest one that I just found not long ago..., a discharge paper signed by 'G. Washington' at Newburgh, and why.... but that's not appropriate here.]
    US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, first paragraph, starts out:
    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;
    This is the sum total of a president's responsibilities in time of war:  "WHEN called into the actual service" he may be Commander in Chief when asked.  He does not even have to be asked to be CiC, it's not a given duty.  He can stay out of it completely and Congress can run the whole thing.

    Congress is the ONLY body authorized to start or stop a legal and constitutional war or finance a legal and constitutional war for TWO years - not a president.  No, Congress is not authorized to wage a war against a little band of fanatical criminals.  That responsibility should have been given to some kind of international body of law enforcement since the crimes committed on 9/11 were horrendous civilian crimes on a massive scale, but they can in NO way be construed as war crimes since the whole thing was NOT an 'act of war.'

    I know.  I know.  When Dumbya was installed as the pResident he talked like it was his sole duty to be Commander Codpiece, but that was a false impression those Media Morons floated around without reading the Constitution and analyzing what he was doing vs what the Constitution actually says.

    The fact remains, what Dumbya did and what Obama is doing now with drones and extending the "military action" in Afghanistan is totally unconstitutional and illegal and breaks all the treaties onto which we are signed as the law of the land because they're incorporated into the US Constitution.

    Jefferson was under no illusions about the educational background of most people in his day.  The entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are written very plainly using elementary words and concepts.  No loopholes like modern laws are written.

    Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
     ~ Thomas Jefferson

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 06:40:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site