Here's what liberatarians DON'T tell you though:

"Doug Stafford, a senior aide to Paul, said the senator has not flip-flopped: “He doesn’t believe we should send a bunch of troops in to start a ground war. But he has always said we have an obligation to defend people in the region. The declaration is tailored to allow for this.”

Let's see them step right up to defend that.

I agree with that. If he is gonna say he wants to wage a year long campaign against IS, he should have strategic plans drawn up with the pentagon, along with a list of elements and supply and what-not. No half assing. Hell, he may have done that, but it would never be made public. and even if he had, it would be Obama who would have the final say. And Obama couldnt plan a war if it was in his pants.

Remember when those certain folks who like to call everyone "NeoCon" would ridicule and laugh at those who said that the Islamacists were going to set up a Caliphate?  The Left did this, too.

Any reasonable plan to deal with ISIS is going to involve essentially taking a Mulligan and renegotiating a SOFA with whoever is still running Iraq (and possibly establishing a second base in Kurdistan) so we can have a continuing presence in the theater but I don't think either Obama or Rand Paul want to pick that scab.

A year doesn't accomplish much in the best of circumstances and it accomplishes nothing when you announce it to the world beforehand.

Politicians figured out long ago that legislation formally declaring war is very unpopular among their constituency. It became much more acceptable to simply pass bills authorizing force.

The fact remains, the President cannot declare war.

He's a Senator.  If he walked into the Pentagon and said...

"Generals, I want to wage a year long campaign against IS.  I need you to draw up strategic plans, along with a list of elements and supply and what-not. No half assing!"

...they would laugh uncomfortably, and wonder who he was.

Nevertheless, same questions:

What format or wording within a document, does the US Constitution require for something to be considered a Constitutionally legitimate "Declaration of War?

Is your Google broken or something? I'm not your Siri.

So you believe that such a required format exists?  

If it does NOT exist, why would an AUMF not suffice?

we declare that a state of war exists

we authorize the use of military force

six

half dozen

I believe the President cannot declare war, and the last legislation that said it was "declaring war" was in WW2. Which was what I stated in my original post.

You sound like you have a bone to pick about a completely separate issue. Have fun.

I'd be more impressed if he authored a bill to issue a modern equivalent to a letter of marque and reprisal.  IE, congress directly hire mercenaries to carry out it's will.


At this point, why not?

War is war is war.   When Congress passes a Law funding the War, and refers to it within the law as a War, it's pretty much a declared War.

No, the President can't declare it, but if Congress weighs in and funds/authorizes the use of military force against a sovereign nation (or transnational group), it's a declaration of war by any definition.

If a Senator,  a U.S. Senator, went to the pentagon, and asked for a plan to destroy ISIS within a year, including a list of  elements and supply to compute costs and logistics, so that Congress could vote on it, They would laught uncontrollably?

I find that hard to believe.

Oh, the laughter would be controlled, but it would be uncomfortable laughter.

Separation of Powers?

seperation of powers? To fight a war you would think congress might need to know how much it will cost, which elements would be needed, any commerce that might have to do etc.

After all they will be paying for it, taxing people, and overseeing it all. how will they support the armies that will fight without knowing what they will need in advance?

Do you think maybe we keep losing wars, because no one has a plan or time table for the war that makes any kind of since? seems kinda odd we keep losing wars that arent formally declared when Everyone that was declared was won withing 5 years or so.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

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;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Nope.

A senator does not task the military to draw up war plans.

Punctuation: The practice, action, or system of inserting points or other small marks into texts, in order to aid interpretation; division of text into sentences, clauses, etc., by means of such marks.

not even to get an understanding of the costs to support armies and to project the cost to the tax payer and how it will effect commerce and so forth? not even to get an idea of how many troops congress would have to active for a war?





That seems awful dumb. Seems like the pentagon would be good at figuring the costs for hypothetic wars. I mean we got a bunch of weapons to fight hypothetic enemies.

Nope.   Senators do not task the military to draw up war plans.  

How about a declaration of "just let all those stone aged fucks kill eachother."

the Constitution clearly gives congress the authority to ask the pentagon for war plans (because congress itself is supposed to come up with war plans) Seems like anyone from congress could ask for war plans, so as to gain support for a war in congress. I mean in order to go to war, the people tasked with overseeing it(congress) should have an idea of the costs, and its effects on the flow of commerce, How many troops, and of what type and all that. Not to mention they have to plan how to pay for it, meaning levying new taxes.

Going to war without plans seems like a really dumb idea. I bet a country would go bankrupt and lose almost every war they fought without a plan and well debated short and long term strategy.

That is why the Constitution Is so damn great.

Really?

So on Tuesday, Senator Paul can task the generals with drawing a plan for a year long war against ISIS...

Wednesday, Rep Eliijah Cummings will drop by an task them to draw up a plan for a two year campaign against Bali (he insists it involve Battleships)....

Thursday, Senator Boxer will task the military to help her with HER war plan; she wants multi-spectral imagery of Cyprus.

Harry Reid's just tasked the military to hold a big parade.

Whether or not a senator can demand that the Pentagon draw up a war plan is irrelevant.  I can 100% guarantee that the Armed Forces have a number of plans for dealing with ISIS ranging from just watching to full-scale invasion, all constantly updated and ready to go.  That's pretty much the actual job description of a general staff.  A Senator can certainly ask to see the existing war plans in order to inform their decisions on procurement and funding, as well as to determine the readiness of the Armed Forces to perform said actions.  


You all seem to be missing the real point of the DoW though...it forces members of Congress to go on record with a vote so they can't later claim that they 'support the troops but abhor the war' or whatnot.   By limiting it to a year, it forces an on-going re-evaluation of the political commitment.  While it is obviously not the best possible solution, it also makes it very difficult to shoe-horn in all the 'nation building' crap that distracts the military while funding our foes.  


As far as legalities go, ISIS has been a 'lawful combatant' for several years now (note: this does not mean that ISIS has not frequently and systematically broken assorted provisions of the Laws of War).  They clearly have a distinct insignia, fight under appointed officers and openly carry their arms.   Fortunately for us, ISIS has de facto declared war on us first so we're covered despite the fact that bombing them without a prior declaration of war would otherwise be a war crime.

yup pretty much. I'd imagine super computers and delegation could assist in finding such information pretty quick.  

Except for the parade. a parade is a parade.

Very well put/

Thank you.

You guys are obviously Constitutional Scholars with vast experience as planners on the Joint Staff.

The center is far broader than the extremes.

 

LOL.

 

Nope. Don't remember this neocon claptrap at all.

 

Common knowledge in this public domain.  The Left and those who point the Neo-Con finger have often considered the Caliphate to be nothing more than  a boogie man.  

You will of course deny this.

So, in other words, you are casting baseless aspersions, yet again.

 




 

The 'neo-con' slur is about as imagined as the 'You all are going to end up voting for Chris Christie!' meme.

The solution isn't giving up our civil liberties and accepting a police state, and the solution certainly isn't more Vietnam wars in the ME. The solution is to tighten immigration laws and become energy independent. Then that part of the world can go straight to hell for all I care.

It's painfully obvious Rand Paul will say anything to gain approval from GOP money men and Christian fundamentalist. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, just another power hungry Republican whore.

'Police state' and 'Vietnam' cards played!

And in the same post no less.  

That is your unimaginative opinion.

 

We wouldn't win that war on the ground with conventional weapons anyway.

You cannot defeat fanatics.  

All you can do is kill them.

Nope, it's common knowledge.  

I'll never retract it! NEVER!  

I've never understood the 'You can't defeat, only kill' meme.  Seems to me that killed is about as defeated as you get.

Of course the whole 'Chess/Checkers' distinction may be lost on me.  

Yeah, I think LE has way too much power, most coming from the failed war on drugs and the war on terrorism. Deal with it. I also think occupying Iraq and Afghanistan has been a giant cluster fuck costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers dead and tens of thousands permanently disabled. Deal with that, too.

There really is no debating how big a fuck up the occupations have been, yet the saber rattlers (mostly Republicans) are still pushing for more wars in the ME. These people are insane, and most certainly are not conservative. Hell, they are anti conservative. Power hungry venal little toads who are more than willing to send Americans to their death because it pleases their masters. Fuck them and fuck anyone who supports them.

We defeated Germany Italy and Japan without having to kill them.

Well at least not all of em.  

You want to defeat ISIS, extermination will be the only way.

I'd prefer to let the Israelis do it.

Neocon only became a slur after the absolute disaster that was the Iraq War. Before that people embraced it openly.

It's still relevant though because these people whose main accomplishment is turning one of Iran's biggest regional opponents in to an Iranian proxy state(at great cost) feel they can lecture current politicians on foreign policy.

Nuke them till they glow. All of them. Anything else I have to say is NOT C.O.C.

I always thought it was another word for "Jew."

'Failed war on drugs', 'sabre rattlers' and 'more wars' cards also played!  

lol

We hereby declare ourselves at WAR!*




* limited to one year duration.  Some assembly required.  Offer void where prohibited by law, policy, or lack of political will.  Your mileage may vary.

Or 'sabre rattler'.

Same difference, I suppose.

How is that different from how it's always been?