That's 100% correct. This is exemplified by Congress authorizing the Quasi-War against France 1798, and the Barbary Wars of 1801 and 1815. In fact it was not until the War of 1812 that Congress ever made a formal written declaration of war, separate from authorizing the use of warfare. By that time, it had authorized two wars prior to that without a separate formal declaration issue. Their authorizing the prior wars of 1798 and 1801 satisfied the Constitutional provision.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Believers against the War
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
KenH
Well-Known Member
1) So if a group inside the United States stages an attack inside another country you would consider that the United States de facto declaring war on that country?
2) We are still in Germany. We are also still in Japan. We are also still in South Korea. We have troops in over 100 countries. -
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0803.pdf
Yes, we are still in Germany and Japan - but not in a status of Occupation.
German occupation officially ended May 1955 and Japan occupation ended in 1952. Since the end of occupation, we are there at the governments request for security - especially in Germany where the threat of an invasion was a strong possibility.
After occupation officially ended, US military personnel were subject to Host nations laws as directed by SOFA.
Remember, we were also in France - why are no longer there? - We were kicked out.
You're missing the point. Whether it's a declaration of war or an authorization of force or whatever you want to call it, there was no Constitutionally justifiable reason to go into Iraq.
That's what we call a:
Oh, that's right. Liberals believe the Constitution is irrelevant. Thanks for reminding me.
Sure there was. The constitution does not limit congress on which situations they can authorize use of force.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I can't find that idea in the Constitution and I certainly don't see it in the writings of the Founding Fathers.
Great then tell me where the constitution limits congress from making such a decision. The fact is the reasons for or against war are not mentioned.To use your logic congress has the power to declare war but there are no situations in which war is acceptable.
Last edited by a moderator:
That isn't how the Constitution works. The government can't say "we can do whatever we want unless the Constitution says we can't". The way the Constitution is designed, Congress can only do those things that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
No, actually, that wouldn't be my logic at all. I said that Congress can't declare war unless there is a compelling reason, not that there are no situations in which war is acceptable.
This is the second time you've misrepresented my words.
It's a shame, too, because I was really enjoying some of your posts.
I did not misrepresent your words. I took your logic to its conclusion There is a difference. So now show me the part of the constitution that says "compelling reason" and then show me where it defines compelling reason.
Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you about it.
That is your choice but this is a debate forum.
saturneptune
New Member
The first point is posts about war from someone who never served or saw combat are meaningless. Read Carpro's post. If it is worth fighting a war, spilling American blood, then it is worth fighting to win, quickly, decisively, with no restrictions, and a quick exit strategy. If not, then don't bother. All of these half way or milk toast posts are not worthy of fighting anyone. Fighting a war requires a competent Commander-in-Chief, which this nation has not had in a while. The people fighting the war deserve our utmost respect, support, and prayers.
The second point is that I agree with D M Harris. What does any of this have to do with Christianity? Why is it we always try and mix the two? It is kind of like the threads that debate which of our two major parties is closer to God. What is the deal? Do all you side liners of patriotism hum "Onward Christian Soldiers" as you watch the fighting on the nightly news?
The Constitution is quite clear. War requires a declaration by the US Congress. Is there a declaration for Iraq and Afghanastan? Yes or no? That should answer all of your questions.
The second point is that I agree with D M Harris. What does any of this have to do with Christianity? Why is it we always try and mix the two? It is kind of like the threads that debate which of our two major parties is closer to God. What is the deal? Do all you side liners of patriotism hum "Onward Christian Soldiers" as you watch the fighting on the nightly news?
The Constitution is quite clear. War requires a declaration by the US Congress. Is there a declaration for Iraq and Afghanastan? Yes or no? That should answer all of your questions.
So according to you than the US Congress should have no authority to have control over the Federal Communications Commission (radio/TV) and the Federal Aviation Administration (planes) as those are not addressed in the Constitution.
But when it comes to war, it should be in our national interest. I do believe that going to war with Iraq was in our national interest.
and Back to my statement about declaring war on Germany
Ken and John (post 45 & 46) said that Germany declared war on us as they (Germany) were allies of Japan.
Even though Germany declared war on us, why didn't we just ignore it until, they invaded us. That way we could have concrencated on fighting Japan instead of having a two front war.
Sgt Salty
That's right. It's a debate forum, not a "let's all make personal attacks and see if we can defeat our opponent by shoving words in his mouth to build our strawmen" forum.
Are these things found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?
Answered this one already.
So where did I shove words or make a personal attack. You are over reacting
Your "by your logic" comment attributed beliefs to me that I do not hold, nor have argued.
1. I do agree, but once we beat Iraq, we were no longer fighting a country, but factions. Makes fighting much more difficult.
2. My OP was about a website I found "Believers against the War" So actually it was the pacifists who are combining Christianity and politics/war
3. IMHO when Congress authorizers funds for War - that = a declaration of war. "Money talks"
Sgt Salty
Ok that explains (falsely) the putting words in you mouth comment, now where was the personal attack?
And FYI carrying ones logic to the natural conclusion is a legitimate act used to show the flaw in the argument being made. It is not putting words in ones mouth.