Liberal or otherwise, the people of WA are largely principled folk and should prove to be receptive to the ideas of sovereignty.

this does not say there are not any conservatives on the west side. it simply means liberals control the west side of the state. Making them the Majority.

Larry, I’m on the West side of the Mountains (39th LD) and my reps are not liberals. One of them is a co-sponsor of HJM4009.

If there’s an invasion, a declaration of war is not required, as the president is authorized to repel invasions without it.

Declaring war is conflict without invasion. And, in the original sense, meant that Congress was the one that determined war would start. And that would mean that the president would be required to wage it. Giving the president the option whether or not, even if it’s within “parameters” does not fill this requirement. It’s a simple transfer of power from the legislative to the executive branch.

What amazes me is that even when support for invading iraq was at its highest, when Ron Paul’s short, easy-to-read proposal would have undoubtedly gotten passed easily, they still refused it. Why? In reality, they see most constitutional restrictions as anachronisms.

Thanks again for engaging on this issue, Monorprise. I’m sure we’ll come to it again in the future.

You say no, and I agree that is a fully respectable position which I’m 100% willing to go along with. But is it the only position? Could congress define Conditions upon which war would be declared automatically?

Or lets expand the question, could Congress make a law regarding the value of currency which could be changed dynamically based upon certain external variables? Say going interest rates?

What if we were invaded should congress have the right to make a law saying if a foreign army invades the united states we automatically declare war and enable the president to uses the Military assets of the united states to repel the invasion?

Cause you know, congress might be in their home States and thus be unable to get to Washington to hold a vote to declare war in the event of a full scale attack and/or invasion.

That’s the questions I must pose in questioning the extent of congress ability to make laws using the powers granted to them under article 1 section 8.

Are they making a law in how something must be done, or are they taking the executive action of implementing/declaring the State of war?

I don’t expect a reply Michael Boldin for I am with you on this 110% either way, theses are simply my concerns/questions.

So whether 150 year old understandings of the commerce clause are suddenly changed in the 1930′s to mean an expansion of power in the federal government, or 170 year old understanding of the war powers clause are suddenly changed in the 1950′s to mean that congress no longer has to do that, the bottom line is the same.

The fact of the matter is that the constitution is written in plain english. it says that congress shall have the power to declare war. For nearly 2 centuries, this is how it conducted itself. And, the founders wanted it that way….they wanted to separate the powers to declare and wage war from the representatives of the people and the executive. Why? Because king george had both those powers at once.

The 2002 “AUMF” was as far from a declaration of war as you can get, constitutionally-speaking. While I would certainly agree with you that the words “declare war” is not what’s needed, it’s the original understanding and intent of that clause which needs to be followed.

To repeat – the only body that can formally declare war is Congress. This means that the People’s representatives are making the decision that the country absolutely will be engaging in war. Then, the only body that can wage the war is the executive branch. Neither branch of government is authorized to transfer their delegated powers to another branch.

Transfer of power – this is just what the 2002 “authorization” was. What it did was authorize the executive branch to make the decision of whether or not war would be waged. It was an illegal and unconstitutional transfer, as the chairman of the committee said on the record – “We are saying to the President, use your judgment.”

It’s as unconstitutional and as blatant a disregard for the original meaning of the constitution as national health care. The founders would never have approved congress telling the president – “use your judgement” on war….

And all they needed to do what vote on a simple resolution stating they were “declaring war” – but they refused to do so. That is congress abdicating it’s responsibility.

I agree Congress should have declared war on Iraq assuming the “use of force authorization” in 2002, was not itself the Constitutional equivalent of a “declaration of war”.
In fact I’m not at all convinced that was not the case.

The U.S. Constitution says congress has the power to declare war, does that mean they need to explicitly use the terms “declare war”, or can they simply authorize the uses of military force against an enemy (War)?

It seems to me the difference between the two is comparable to the difference between a description of a person and the name of that person.

So I am not at all convinced congress did not in legal effect declare War on Iraq in 2002 provisionally with specific rules and regulations regarding the military and government actually engaging in war.

To be quite frank I would agree simply “declaring war” in the sense your thinking of formally, is some what a “anachronism” in the same way it makes little sense to warn that which you intend to attack of your coming attack.
I think the declaration of war is actually an authorization by the government for the nation to engage in war. To that end, congress clearly did declare war on Iraq in 2002 in authorizing the uses of force(the state of War) with that nation (Declaring War to exist by any other name).

So with due respect to Ron Paul I don’t think congress has to uses the legally pre-defined defined rule set they made for themselves in defining the state of war, but rather can create a new custom definition with regard to each nation in declaring war on them.

Ron Paul – even though he opposed the Iraq war – demanded that congress declare war as required by Article I, Section 8. You know what happened? He was basically laughed at. He, and the rest of the people in this country, were told outright – the process of declaring war is an “anachronism”

But, it’s still in the Constitution – and that document was never amended to remove it either.

Chairman Henry Hyde is quoted, for the record, responding to Paul’s proposal to follow the Constitution:

“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore…“

The 50-member Committee then went on to vote against the substitute amendment offered by Rep. Paul, which read simply (after the resolving clause), “That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.”