Hammers should be banned...

try

I understand, and agree, but all your 'proposed amendment' would do is hand them a tool for stripping your citizenship for having said so.

Easy. Just look at the last 100 years of history.

Of course it is. I simply meant it might have affected the 'legalities' of pursuing a charge of 'treason'.

That's why I put 'declared' in tick marks. The notion that Congressional authorizations missing the words 'declare war' are somehow 'illegal' is utter nonsense.

The point being that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that congress is required to use the words "THE UNITED STATES DECLARES WAR ON...." for it to be a "war". If there's shootin' and bombin' and killin' and congress put its stamp on it, it's a war.

Agreed, and I've made the same point many times.

Well, I'm not sure just 'one word' for all level of conflict is necessarily appropriate.

What else could it be if Congress authorizes the *military* to kill people and break things? It *is* an act of war to attack another sovereign nation. Call a spade a spade.

amend

There's more than one kind of spade.

The problem is the word 'war' is too broad. WWII, for example, has been termed "total war,' which said to be different than 'plain ole war'.

It also presents domestic 'legal' problems in that using 'war' provides for various emergency powers you'd probably rather not have activated.

And then there are circumstances you'd rather not call 'war', like aiding an ally. Germany might well have considered the U.S. aiding Great Britain an 'act of war' but they didn't want to bring the U.S. into war. And there were shooting incidents too but, then, we didn't want to declare war either.

And then there's the 'new' category, since the creation of the U.N., in which you are providing men and material to an 'international force' but, technically, 'you' are not 'at war'. The U.N. is supposedly taking the action.

For example, the Korean War was a U.N. action and Truman didn't bother getting Congressional approval at all, claiming the U.N. resolution was sufficient. Which, IMO, is hogwash. NO treaty or international 'agreement' can amend or over-ride the Constitution.

The Obama Administration has made similar claims when in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Leon Peneta said they would seek 'international permission' (if some sort of military operation need be taken) and 'inform' Congress.

"Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."

Besides that stunning response I find it mind boggling that Peneta doesn't seem to even grasp what Sessions is talking about.

Of course, the Obama administration didn't ask Congress for Libya either and Clinton never asked Congress to authorize any of his adventures either.

Bush did so, of course, democrats run around screaming 'illegal'.

to

itself

amend

rule

would

from

It's been called "total war" because there was nothing happening in the economy, or politically, other than the war. It was the only issue; all energy directed in one place.

'splain, please.

Political posturing. It *was* an act of war. No bout a doubt it.

Presidents "claim" a lot of things. Unless someone challenges them, they generally get away with it.

Perzactly. See above.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that if congress approves of a military action (and funds it) it *is* a war, whether or not the 'D' word is used. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a list of magic words.

to

itself

amend

rule

would

from

That's probably a reasonable synopsis.

The point is that's not the conceptualization behind the Hague and Geneva Conventions describing 'rules' for 'civilized' warfare where a clear distinction is made between 'combatants' and 'civilians'. They were written as if 'war' was essentially a hissy fit between 'royals', with their paid armies, and, okay, if you boys must fight lets play 'fair' and, for heaven's sake, leave the poor innocent bystanders out of it.

That's not the case with 'total war' so we have 'rules' that may apply in some circumstances but not in others which, I believe, illustrates that simply 'one word' isn't necessarily sufficient to the task. And this was not a trivial issue in the post war issue of 'war crimes'.

Many of the 'all energy directed' matters you references above are invoked, or at least allowed to be invoked, by law during 'declared war'. And I don't mean that Congress can, and will, make laws under those conditions; I mean they have passed laws granting 'power to... in case of..." and there are reams of Executive Orders on how these powers are to be implemented "in case of..."

Of course.

Says who? An 'act of war' is simply what 'someone' decides is a sufficient reason to declare war but what YOU may be willing to go to war over isn't necessarily what someone else will.

As you, yourself, said "political posturing" and everyone declares their cause just, even if it's a theory that you are the master race being persecuted by uncontrolled hoards of vermin.

In the case of Truman the 'claim' was demonstrably false as there is no Constitutional authority granted for the President to 'loan out' the U.S. military at his discretion.

I agree it's legal, regardless, and in most cases I might not have a problem with saying that's 'a war' but I reserve the right to ponder the wisdom of using just 'one word' to cover all contingencies.

For a while, until Pearl Harbor, then Germany immediately declared war on the US. It might be argued that the Berlin-Tokyo alliance ultimately sealed Germany's fate.

I once had a POW-MIA bumper sticker that said that.

-- "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman)

That changed things, of course, and as he gleefully noted the Japanese hadn't been defeated in over 2,000 years, or some such ridiculously large number. Can't lose, right?

There are a number of alleged 'fatal mistakes', like not invading England when he had the chance and, on the converse, invading the Soviet Union before the western front was secure.

I like to think the 'fatal flaw' is that lunatics are fatally flawed.

Here you go...

See that AR-10 there? Muzzle velocity so fast, that at 3000yds, you'd be dead before you _heard_ the report... and good riddance, too >:-} ...Jim Thompson

Seems that phrase applies to Obamacare, now clearly defined as the direct path to socialized medicine. ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

Nonsense. This is not your first time on this issue and you have yet to learn of the basic right to self defense.

?-)

Carrying a gun isn't the only possible mode of self-defence, and it does involve risking more collateral damage than most of the alternatives.

If women wore a sign that said "I have AIDS", do you think that would stop rapes? Would that be considered a self-defense?

It gets pretty packed in New Orlean's French Quarter during Mardi Gras, but yelling "herpes" parted the crowds like Moses and the Red Sea.

Cheers, James Arthur

Probably not. It's too easy to lie.

Is that comparable with yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre?