Thread for pro-War Arguments

[David Floyd]

There is nothing in the Constitution that makes an undeclared war illegal. The requirement is that Congress do authorize it. If they don't want to call it a war that didn't make it illegal.

There is nothing in the Constitution about "authorizing" a war. Congress can declare war or not, but there is no legally valid "in between".

They did declare war. They just chose not to call it one.

Incorrect. They did no such thing.

There is no special requirement in the Constitution for declaring war. All that is needed is a simple majority and Congess gave Bush much more than a simple majority.

Yes, that is true. Congress gave Bush the authority to exercise a power possessed by neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branch - that is, the power to go to war without first declaring war. But Congress can't do that, at least not without a Constitutional Amendment. Congress doesn't have the power to authorize unconstitutional actions.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd


There is nothing in the Constitution about "authorizing" a war. Congress can declare war or not, but there is no legally valid "in between".

You are hung up one word.

Incorrect. They did no such thing.

See above.

Yes, that is true. Congress gave Bush the authority to exercise a power possessed by neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branch - that is, the power to go to war without first declaring war. But Congress can't do that, at least not without a Constitutional Amendment. Congress doesn't have the power to authorize unconstitutional actions.

See above.

See the US Supreme Court. Show me where they agree with you. They, not you, say what the law of the land is. No one has appointed you the power of sole arbiter of all things legal. However the US Constitution does grant that power to the the Supreme Court.

[David Floyd]

You are hung up one word.

Maybe, but semantics in this case are very important.

See the US Supreme Court. Show me where they agree with you. They, not you, say what the law of the land is. No one has appointed you the power of sole arbiter of all things legal. However the US Constitution does grant that power to the the Supreme Court.

Yes, and I happen to believe the Supreme Court is wrong. It's happened before, I'm sure we can all agree.

But if you want to use the argument that "what you say is invalid because someone in authority disagrees with you", or "you're right because someone in authority agrees with you", then what the hell is the point of discussions like these to begin with?

[Japher]

I am sure that the US has done some pretty evil things that is why I made that comment about Saddam defecting.

The US is, however, lucky that we are rather powerful insofarasmuch as we are able to not only set the rules but change them at any time we want. Something that is horrid, but true. Unfortunatly for Saddam, Iraq was not that powerful, and should of played by the current rules (call Boyle for the complete handbook) to begin with. Now that he has not, big brother is going to step in. We already gave him a 15 yard penalty, he now needs to be ejected from the game.

Is this morally wrong? No. It is the way of the world and the way of humanity; if it threatens you, attack it. If it tries to kill you, try and kill it back. Where are the morals in war? The mighty will win, and in time it will be right. For in the end the victors write the history books.

Do you ever wonder why the meek shall INHERIT the earth?

[David Floyd]

The US is, however, lucky that we are rather powerful insofarasmuch as we are able to not only set the rules but change them at any time we want. Something that is horrid, but true. Unfortunatly for Saddam, Iraq was not that powerful, and should of played by the current rules (call Boyle for the complete handbook) to begin with. Now that he has not, big brother is going to step in. We already gave him a 15 yard penalty, he now needs to be ejected from the game.

So all you are saying is that the strong set the rules, and everyone else should go by them. Therefore, if Nazi Germany won WW2, we should all follow their rules, because their rules would be "right" on the basis of "might". Correct?

Is this morally wrong? No. It is the way of the world and the way of humanity; if it threatens you, attack it. If it tries to kill you, try and kill it back. Where are the morals in war? The mighty will win, and in time it will be right. For in the end the victors write the history books.

Will you at least accept the statement that the strong can set immoral "rules"?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Yes, and I happen to believe the Supreme Court is wrong. It's happened before, I'm sure we can all agree.

Do let me know when you something in the Constitution that says 'David Floyd is the sole arbiter of the Constitution'.

But if you want to use the argument that "what you say is invalid because someone in authority disagrees with you", or "you're right because someone in authority agrees with you", then what the hell is the point of discussions like these to begin with?

I am merely pointing out that you were wrong in claiming the Gulf War was neither a war nor legal. It was a war. It was called one. The semantic issue is an attempt to make an issue where there is none. The US has gone to war without declaring one before. It has never been found to be illegal and the Supreme Court has had ample time to make a decision on the issue.

The President did not decare war so he broke no law. Congress funded his actions so he still broke no law. Nothing in the Constitution requires a declared a war. All it says is that the power to declare a war is held by Congress. If one is not declared then there is nothing in Constitution covering it.

Pertinent clauses

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses 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;

Nothing there actually requires the specific use of the word "war". Simply that the power is reserved to Congress and it was Congress that acted.

[uh Clem]

Whether or not one believes Saddam, there's certainly no reason whatever to believe the US government. US administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have lied so relentlessly on the subject of Iraq over the past two decades that disbelieving anything they say should be one's default position.

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that all governments lie when they are eager to go to war. Any American who is old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as I am, does not have the moral right to accept the administration's word without corroborating evidence (and strong evidence).

The Bush administration has consistently refused to make a coherent argument. To the contrary; as one White House staffer was quoted in Time magazine last week, "we're going to throw everything at [Saddam], and see what sticks." That pretty much sums up their entire argument to date.

[Japher]

. Therefore, if Nazi Germany won WW2, we should all follow their rules, because their rules would be "right" on the basis of "might". Correct?

I don't want to play the what if game, but yes.

Will you at least accept the statement that the strong can set immoral "rules"?

Haven't I already? Do I need to say it out loud? Yet, what does the decission in going to war have to do with morality? There is NO right or wrong answer here, morally. The answer must be based humanity, and the way that is addressed is by asking the question "which way will result in the least amount of lives?"

IMHO: War. Now.

[David Floyd]

I am merely pointing out that you were wrong in claiming the Gulf War was neither a war nor legal. It was a war. It was called one. The semantic issue is an attempt to make an issue where there is none. The US has gone to war without declaring one before. It has never been found to be illegal and the Supreme Court has had ample time to make a decision on the issue.

I think that the qualifier "In my opinion" is assumed in 99% of all Poly posts by everyone

Nothing in the Constitution requires a declared a war. All it says is that the power to declare a war is held by Congress.

Actually I disagree. Congress has the sole power to declare war. Therefore, they have the sole power to create a war. If the US wants to create a war, Congress must do it. If the President bombs someone, he is in effect creating a war, but if Congress doesn't declare war first, he is violating the Constitution. War declarations, and hence war creations, are the exclusive power of Congress.

Nothing there actually requires the specific use of the word "war". Simply that the power is reserved to Congress and it was Congress that acted.

And none of those powers have anything to do with wars against foreign nations, except for the clause empowering Congress to declare war.

Piracy and felonies on the high seas have nothing to do with official state actions, otherwise they would be acts of war.

Letters of marque and reprisal are simply a method of legalizing piracy in wartime. Making rules for captures on land and water is a power that, I would assume, is related to the granting of letters of marque and reprisal.

Raising armies and navies is just that.

Governing and regulating the military is also just that.

[David Floyd]

I don't want to play the what if game, but yes.

OK. You accept the concept that might makes right in every situation, regardless of other factors. You obviously do not accept the concept of individual rights, and certainly not natural or inviolable individual rights.

Correct?

Yet, what does the decission in going to war have to do with morality?

Clearly, going to war will cause people to die. That in itself brings morality into the picture, wouldn't you say?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monkspider
Not invading Iraq is the only morally correct thing to do.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

Peace through power!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ethelred
See the US Supreme Court. Show me where they agree with you. They, not you, say what the law of the land is. No one has appointed you the power of sole arbiter of all things legal. However the US Constitution does grant that power to the the Supreme Court.

Actually, that is not true. No where in the Constituion does it grant the courts the ability to decide what is or is not the supreme law of the land. It is a power they assumed to themselves, and which almost everyone else agrees is a good thing. But it is not Constitutional. Congress could Constitutionally grant it that power, but it has never done so. It is logical to assume that that a Constitution is superior to all other laws of the land, that is, after all, the purpose of creating one and making it so difficult to change.

The Congress could, at any time, pass a bill that says that the courts may not decide the Constitutionality of a law, only the merits of a case under the pertinent law. One would hope the President would veto it. Congress could still override the veto. That would then require either a new law to overturn that law or a Constituional Amendment passed by the states. Congress hates when the states start their own initiatives, because that could lead to a convention, and then everything's up for grabs. But these are only hypotheicals. Congress is unlikely to ever do such a thing, even it if has threatened to do so in the past.

[Ethelred]

I think the Constitution DOES that.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

The phrase "laws of the United States" seems to mean they are part of the Supreme Courts job. It should be clear both now and at the time the Constitution was written that people would occasionally pass laws that were in conflict with the Constitution. Clearly there must be a way to decide when that happens. It is also clear that the Constitution was written to limit the powers of each branch of government. If it was up to Congress to decide what laws were Constitutional then there would be no limit on the Legislative branch which is in violation of the concept of Seperation of Powers.

The Congress could, at any time, pass a bill that says that the courts may not decide the Constitutionality of a law, only the merits of a case under the pertinent law. One would hope the President would veto it. Congress could still override the veto.

I think that would require a Constitutional amendment.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Even if Congress should decide a specific law should be handled by another court the Supreme Court still has appellate jurisdiction wherein it may decide upon the legality of the law in question. This is in fact how most of the Federal legal system is handled. Only a few things go straight to the Supreme Court. Most of what the Supreme Court deals with is appeals which the Constitution give the specific power to ajudicate.

[chequita guevara]

"With such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make." Congress is also charged with establishing a judiciary. Apellate power is meaningless if trial courts aren't allowed to make such decisions in the first place. And Congerss could strip it of the ability to be an appellate court in x situations.

Section two doesn't say that the courts have the ability to decide the constitutionality, only that they shall have judicial power, etc. etc.

When Marshall first made the case of the Court's ability to decide the constitutionality of laws, he didn't appeal to the Constitution itself, but rather to logic and common sense. It's probably the most important case in US history just for the judgement that the SCOTUS has that power (it was an otherwise uninteresting case involving a government appointment).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Section two doesn't say that the courts have the ability to decide the constitutionality, only that they shall have judicial power, etc. etc.

It says "both as to law and fact,". That clearly means the law itself is open to question not just facts.

"With such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make." Congress is also charged with establishing a judiciary. Apellate power is meaningless if trial courts aren't allowed to make such decisions in the first place. And Congerss could strip it of the ability to be an appellate court in x situations

That one I think you are right after taking a second look. Its clearly an extremely bad idea. One I am not aware of ever being implemented. Even when both the Congress and the President have been exceeding wroth with the Supreme Court it hasn't happened. What they do instead is try a variation on the law that got knocked down.