Defending the constitution

[RespectTradition]

Ok, I have a question about defending the constitution.

fact, the constitution grants exclusive rights of war to congress (with one exception). fact, every president in the last 30 years has sent troops into combat on his own authority. Can anyone in the military who in any way participated in such actions hold to the idea that they are defending the constitution when their actions are part of a constitutional violation?

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by RespectTradition

Ok, I have a question about defending the constitution.

fact, the constitution grants exclusive rights of war to congress (with one exception). fact, every president in the last 30 years has sent troops into combat on his own authority. Can anyone in the military who in any way participated in such actions hold to the idea that they are defending the constitution when their actions are part of a constitutional violation?

No.

[The Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by people hate the constitution and ron paul

Furthermore, the structure of the War Powers Resolution (WPR) recognizes and presupposes the existence of unilateral Presidential authority to deploy armed forces "into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a)(1). The WPR requires that, in the absence of a declaration of war, the President must report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into such circumstances and must terminate the use of United States armed forces within 60 days (or 90 days, if military necessity requires additional time to effect a withdrawal) unless Congress permits otherwise. Id. § 1544(b). This structure makes sense only if the President may introduce troops into hostilities or potential hostilities without prior authorization by the Congress: the WPR regulates such action by the President and seeks to set limits to it.(2)

I'm just sayin...

[RespectTradition]

Originally Posted by The Ron Mexico

I'm just sayin...

The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by The Ron Mexico

I'm just sayin...

The key to pandoras box, govt equals failure is the easiest answer

[The Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by RespectTradition

The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.

In your opinion.

[YorkVol]

Would you have the soldiers request a legal review prior to a deployment? Most of my career was spent in units that had rapid deployment responsibilities. That meant bags were packed and we had to be able to respond within 2 hours after alert and wheels up within 18 hours. There is no time to check the Constitution in that scenario so you have to trust that the NSC (and all the chains of command in between) has their act together.

[The Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by YorkVol

Would you have the soldiers request a legal review prior to a deployment? Most of my career was spent in units that had rapid deployment responsibilities. That meant bags were packed and we had to be able to respond within 2 hours after alert and wheels up within 18 hours. There is no time to check the Constitution in that scenario so you have to trust that the NSC (and all the chains of command in between) has their act together.

This.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by The Ron Mexico

This.

plus one

[RespectTradition]

Originally Posted by YorkVol

Would you have the soldiers request a legal review prior to a deployment? Most of my career was spent in units that had rapid deployment responsibilities. That meant bags were packed and we had to be able to respond within 2 hours after alert and wheels up within 18 hours. There is no time to check the Constitution in that scenario so you have to trust that the NSC (and all the chains of command in between) has their act together.

I think the constitutional provisions for congress to declare war is exactly the point. Rapid deployments are rash/hasty actions and the decision to put lives on the line should be deliberate and thought out. The constitution gives the president authority to act when the US is attacked. Any other scenario is foreign policy, not national defense.

[RespectTradition]

Originally Posted by The Ron Mexico

In your opinion.

It's a discussion board, thats the point.

[The Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by RespectTradition

It's a discussion board, thats the point.

Yes, I am well aware of this activity which is currently benefiting from my participation.

[YorkVol]

Originally Posted by RespectTradition

I think the constitutional provisions for congress to declare war is exactly the point. Rapid deployments are rash/hasty actions and the decision to put lives on the line should be deliberate and thought out. The constitution gives the president authority to act when the US is attacked. Any other scenario is foreign policy, not national defense.

In a world of nukes do you really want to wait until we can get Congress to act when we are threatened? Do we want to wait for the actual attack before we respond?

Next question, define war.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by The Ron Mexico

Yes, I am well aware of this activity which is currently benefiting from my participation.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by YorkVol

In a world of nukes do you really want to wait until we can get Congress to act when we are threatened? Do we want to wait for the actual attack before we respond?

Next question, define war.

Why limit it to nukes?