|
|
|
|
|
|
by LordKano
4133 days ago
|
|
|
We have allowed the word "War" to be bastardized in everyday usage with things like "The War on Drugs" or "The War on Poverty" and now the "War on Terror" but "War" is something very specific. The United States of America is not at "War" unless there is a Declaration of War from the Congress. The Congress of the United States of America has not declared war in over 70 years. It's not likely to happen unless this country is facing a very real, existential threat. Declaring war is like flipping a switch on our Constitutional and economic systems. |
|
|
The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war, but the extension of that to "war doesn't exist unless Congress declares it" is reading something into the Constitution which is not expressly there, and which there is a fairly good historical argument (which every Supreme Court case to take up the issue, starting fairly early on in the Republic, also sided with) is not at all intended.
> The Congress of the United States of America has not declared war in over 70 years.
This is not true; just as Congress doesn't have to use magic words when it invokes, say, its interstate commerce power, or its taxation power, neither does it when it choses to exercise its power to declare war; acts of Congress like the 2001 "9/11 AUMF" and the 2003 "Iraq AUMF" are both examples of exercises of the power to declare war (in both cases, declarations made conditional on executive acts.)
> Declaring war is like flipping a switch on our Constitutional and economic systems.
Declaring war is not like flipping a switch on the Constitution. Nor the economic system, really, though separate radical acts in the economic arena may be premised on the existence of a state of war.