by Drew Zahn (WND)
Sheriffs and peace officers from across the country will be meeting with likeminded supporters for a national convention focused on one goal: restoring constitutional rule in the United States of America.
From May 31-June 1, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, or CSPOA, will be meeting in St. Charles, Mo., for its Heartland of America Conference.
The purpose of the conference is to equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with information and public support to carry out their oaths of office – specifically, to uphold the U.S. Constitution – recognizing that in the case of federal overreach, the county sheriff may be the last line of defense in protecting Americans’ constitutional rights.
“We are going to train and vet them all, state by state, to understand and enforce the constitutionally protected rights of the people they serve, with an emphasis on state sovereignty and local autonomy,” explains CSPOA Founder and Executive Director Sheriff Richard Mack. “Then these local governments will issue our new Declaration to the Federal Government regarding the abuses that we will no longer tolerate or accept. Said declaration will be enforced by our Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers.
“In short,” Mack says, “the CSPOA will be the army to set our nation free.”
Mack is more than familiar with fighting federal overreach. The former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., in 1994 Mack joined six other sheriffs in challenging a provision of the federal Brady Bill placing the burden of its background checks on local sheriffs. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to strike down the provision.
Police Chief Larry Kirk of Old Monroe, Mo., told WND, “In the past few years we have seen many of the citizens of this country become concerned over the direction it has taken. We have watched personal rights being eroded and a disconnect developing between citizens and officers working in law enforcement.
“I wanted to find other officers that shared my concerns,” he continued. “I wanted to be able to work with our sheriffs and other peace officers in educating the citizens and others in our career field on the powers of the sheriff’s office and what is needed for us to stand on guard to protect our rights and those of our fellow citizens. The CSPOA is the organization at the front of this movement.
“The people of my state are seeing the overreach of government at the federal level and want to know where their sheriffs will stand,” he concluded. “The people of this state need to hear this message, and the sheriffs of this state need to hear it. Sheriffs and officers need the support of their communities, and we need to support them. This is the organization that can help educate us all on the proper roles that we should play and what we can do to stop the encroachment on our liberties and unalienable rights.”
Sheriff Mack further told WND, “In view of the culture of corruption, which seems so prevalent in Washington, many Americans are searching for hope and solutions that are both effective and peaceful. The purpose of the CSPOA convention is to offer absolute evidence that both indeed exist. Each attendee will leave with this evidence and a renewed hope that restoring liberty in America is not only possible, but already underway!”
The convention, to be held at the Ameristar Hotel in St. Charles, Mo., is free to all public officials and open to the public at large.
Register to attend the Heartland of America Conference at the CSPOA website now!
Comments are invited!
Send feeedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Friday, May 24, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
What Big-Gov't Crowd Fears The Most
by Andrew Napolitano
In all the noise caused by the Obama administration’s direct assault on the right of every person to keep and bear arms, the essence of the issue has been drowned out. The president and his big-government colleagues want you to believe that only the government can keep you free and safe, so to them, the essence of this debate is about obedience to law.
To those who have killed innocents among us, obedience to law is the last of their thoughts. And to those who believe that the Constitution means what it says, the essence of this debate is not about the law; it is about personal liberty in a free society. It is the exercise of this particular personal liberty – the freedom to defend yourself when the police cannot or will not and the freedom to use weapons to repel tyrants if they take over the government – that the big-government crowd fears the most.
Let’s be candid: All government fears liberty. By its nature, government is the negation of liberty. God has given us freedom, and the government has taken it away. George Washington recognized this when he argued that government is not reason or eloquence but force. If the government had its way, it would have a monopoly on force.
Government compels, restrains and takes. Thomas Jefferson understood that when he wrote that our liberties are unalienable and endowed by our Creator, and the only reason we have formed governments is to engage them to protect our liberties. We enacted the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to restrain the government. Yet somewhere along the way, government got the idea that it can more easily protect the freedom of us all from the abuses of a few by curtailing the freedom of us all. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that’s where we are today.
The anti-Second Amendment crowd cannot point to a single incident in which curtailing the freedom of law-abiding Americans has stopped criminals or crazies from killing. It is obvious that criminals don’t care what the law says because they think they can get away with their violations of it. And those unfortunates who are deranged don’t recognize any restraint on their own behavior, as they cannot mentally distinguish right from wrong and cannot be expected to do so in the future, no matter what the law says.
When the Second Amendment was written and added to the Constitution, the use of guns in America was common. At the same time, King George III – whom we had just defeated and who was contemplating another war against us, which he would start in 1812 – no doubt ardently wished that he had stripped his colonists of their right to self-defense so as to subdue their use of violence to secede from Great Britain. That act of secession, the American Revolution, was largely successful because close to half of the colonists were armed and did not fear the use of weaponry.
If the king and the Parliament had enacted and enforced laws that told them who among the colonists owned guns or that limited the power of the colonists’ guns or the amount of ammunition they could possess, our Founding Fathers would have been hanged for treason. One of the secrets of the Revolution – one not taught in public schools today – is that the colonists actually had superior firepower to the king. The British soldiers had standard-issue muskets, which propelled a steel ball or several of them about 50 yards from the shooter. But the colonists had the long gun – sometimes called the Kentucky or the Tennessee – which propelled a single steel ball about 200 yards, nearly four times as far as the British could shoot. Is it any wonder that by Yorktown in 1781, the king and the Parliament had lost enough men and treasure to surrender?
The lesson here is that free people cannot remain free by permitting the government – even a popularly elected one that they can unelect – to take their freedoms away. The anti-freedom crowd in the government desperately wants to convey the impression that it is doing something to protect us. So it unconstitutionally and foolishly seeks, via burdensome and intrusive registration laws, laws restricting the strength of weapons and the quantity and quality of ammunition and, the latest trick, laws that impose financial liability on law-abiding manufacturers and sellers for the criminal behavior of some users, to make it so burdensome to own a gun that the ordinary folks who want one will give up their efforts to obtain one.
We cannot let ourselves fall down this slippery slope. The right to self-defense is a natural individual right that pre-exists the government. It cannot morally or constitutionally be taken away absent individual consent or due process. Kings and tyrants have taken this right away. We cannot let a popular majority take it away, for the tyranny of the majority can be as destructive to freedom as the tyranny of a madman.
Note: Andrew P. Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written eight books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent are "The Freedom Answer Book" and "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed
Comments are invited!
send feedback to: WatchDog
.
In all the noise caused by the Obama administration’s direct assault on the right of every person to keep and bear arms, the essence of the issue has been drowned out. The president and his big-government colleagues want you to believe that only the government can keep you free and safe, so to them, the essence of this debate is about obedience to law.
To those who have killed innocents among us, obedience to law is the last of their thoughts. And to those who believe that the Constitution means what it says, the essence of this debate is not about the law; it is about personal liberty in a free society. It is the exercise of this particular personal liberty – the freedom to defend yourself when the police cannot or will not and the freedom to use weapons to repel tyrants if they take over the government – that the big-government crowd fears the most.
Let’s be candid: All government fears liberty. By its nature, government is the negation of liberty. God has given us freedom, and the government has taken it away. George Washington recognized this when he argued that government is not reason or eloquence but force. If the government had its way, it would have a monopoly on force.
Government compels, restrains and takes. Thomas Jefferson understood that when he wrote that our liberties are unalienable and endowed by our Creator, and the only reason we have formed governments is to engage them to protect our liberties. We enacted the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to restrain the government. Yet somewhere along the way, government got the idea that it can more easily protect the freedom of us all from the abuses of a few by curtailing the freedom of us all. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that’s where we are today.
The anti-Second Amendment crowd cannot point to a single incident in which curtailing the freedom of law-abiding Americans has stopped criminals or crazies from killing. It is obvious that criminals don’t care what the law says because they think they can get away with their violations of it. And those unfortunates who are deranged don’t recognize any restraint on their own behavior, as they cannot mentally distinguish right from wrong and cannot be expected to do so in the future, no matter what the law says.
When the Second Amendment was written and added to the Constitution, the use of guns in America was common. At the same time, King George III – whom we had just defeated and who was contemplating another war against us, which he would start in 1812 – no doubt ardently wished that he had stripped his colonists of their right to self-defense so as to subdue their use of violence to secede from Great Britain. That act of secession, the American Revolution, was largely successful because close to half of the colonists were armed and did not fear the use of weaponry.
If the king and the Parliament had enacted and enforced laws that told them who among the colonists owned guns or that limited the power of the colonists’ guns or the amount of ammunition they could possess, our Founding Fathers would have been hanged for treason. One of the secrets of the Revolution – one not taught in public schools today – is that the colonists actually had superior firepower to the king. The British soldiers had standard-issue muskets, which propelled a steel ball or several of them about 50 yards from the shooter. But the colonists had the long gun – sometimes called the Kentucky or the Tennessee – which propelled a single steel ball about 200 yards, nearly four times as far as the British could shoot. Is it any wonder that by Yorktown in 1781, the king and the Parliament had lost enough men and treasure to surrender?
The lesson here is that free people cannot remain free by permitting the government – even a popularly elected one that they can unelect – to take their freedoms away. The anti-freedom crowd in the government desperately wants to convey the impression that it is doing something to protect us. So it unconstitutionally and foolishly seeks, via burdensome and intrusive registration laws, laws restricting the strength of weapons and the quantity and quality of ammunition and, the latest trick, laws that impose financial liability on law-abiding manufacturers and sellers for the criminal behavior of some users, to make it so burdensome to own a gun that the ordinary folks who want one will give up their efforts to obtain one.
We cannot let ourselves fall down this slippery slope. The right to self-defense is a natural individual right that pre-exists the government. It cannot morally or constitutionally be taken away absent individual consent or due process. Kings and tyrants have taken this right away. We cannot let a popular majority take it away, for the tyranny of the majority can be as destructive to freedom as the tyranny of a madman.
Note: Andrew P. Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written eight books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent are "The Freedom Answer Book" and "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed
Comments are invited!
send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Obama Effort To Strip Constitutional Gun Rights May Start American Civil War
Examiner.com
Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.
Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ effort for seceding from America.
This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice? This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.
Where does that leave Americans?
The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”
The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.
When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!
The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.
Several hundred thousand petitioners representing all fifty states, including battleground state Ohio have signed to secede from the union. This is far more serious than a group of Hollywood actors and entertainers who threatened to vacate and move to Canada after President Bush was reelected in 2004.
This is a significant and determined first step in the process to take back this nation from a president who has made numerous attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.
Impeachment for the purposes of clarification comes from English law and was used in 1640 case against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. He had, “traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms . . . and instead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.”
Obama has moved to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the United States, by refusing to enforce DOMA which is congressional legislation passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He has issued an executive order which circumvents federal immigration law, granting nearly a million illegal immigrants the right to be protected from removal which the law demands. These are just a few of his attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution.
So in plain English, President Obama should face impeachable offenses that can be determined in the House of Representatives.
Begin now to take your first steps of many to protect the integrity of your Second Amendment U.S. Constitution’s right to protect your family. Today, tonight and tomorrow consider: what are you prepared to do to protect your family?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.
Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ effort for seceding from America.
This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice? This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.
Where does that leave Americans?
The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”
The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.
When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!
The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.
Several hundred thousand petitioners representing all fifty states, including battleground state Ohio have signed to secede from the union. This is far more serious than a group of Hollywood actors and entertainers who threatened to vacate and move to Canada after President Bush was reelected in 2004.
This is a significant and determined first step in the process to take back this nation from a president who has made numerous attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.
Impeachment for the purposes of clarification comes from English law and was used in 1640 case against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. He had, “traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms . . . and instead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.”
Obama has moved to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the United States, by refusing to enforce DOMA which is congressional legislation passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He has issued an executive order which circumvents federal immigration law, granting nearly a million illegal immigrants the right to be protected from removal which the law demands. These are just a few of his attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution.
So in plain English, President Obama should face impeachable offenses that can be determined in the House of Representatives.
Begin now to take your first steps of many to protect the integrity of your Second Amendment U.S. Constitution’s right to protect your family. Today, tonight and tomorrow consider: what are you prepared to do to protect your family?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
America's Obituary?
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
The founding fathers believed this to be the case (see note) and set forth a new form of government which they called a 'Representative Republic', in the hope that it could prevent the normal death cycle of all democracies.. The founding fathers had great wisdom and told us that survival of the system required that we elect men (or women) of great 'moral character'. Toward that end, we have failed!
(note) Mark Leven shows in his book, "Ameritobia)" a clear path as to how the founding fathers arrived at our foundingf documents
The Obituary follows:
--- Born 1776
--- Died 2012
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Editors Note: Obama has once again used an Executive Order to circumvent the will of the the People and Congress and granted amnesty to millions of Mexican Invaders, many of which will vote without citizenship!
THIS ELECTION IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO RESCUE AND RESTORE AMERICA!
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
- From bondage to spiritual faith;
- From spiritual faith to great courage;
- From courage to liberty;
- From liberty to abundance;
- From abundance to complacency;
- From complacency to apathy;
- From apathy to dependence;
- From dependence back into bondage."
The founding fathers believed this to be the case (see note) and set forth a new form of government which they called a 'Representative Republic', in the hope that it could prevent the normal death cycle of all democracies.. The founding fathers had great wisdom and told us that survival of the system required that we elect men (or women) of great 'moral character'. Toward that end, we have failed!
(note) Mark Leven shows in his book, "Ameritobia)" a clear path as to how the founding fathers arrived at our foundingf documents
The Obituary follows:
--- Born 1776
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
- Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
- Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
- Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
- Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
- In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Editors Note: Obama has once again used an Executive Order to circumvent the will of the the People and Congress and granted amnesty to millions of Mexican Invaders, many of which will vote without citizenship!
THIS ELECTION IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO RESCUE AND RESTORE AMERICA!
--WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Friday, June 22, 2012
A Revolution By Another Name
By Wes Pruden
A revised DREAM act, which could have dealt in an orderly way with the children of illegal aliens in our midst, is dead. Barack Obama couldn’t wait to get the corpse out of the parlor.
The president’s remarkable amnesty by fiat – an amnesty that dare not speak its name – has the immediate effect of giving a permanent temporary pass to 800,000 of these children of illegals. But there’s more to this mercy than the casual eye sees.
This amnesty defers until after the election, and probably for good, comprehensive immigration reform of the sort envisioned by Sen. Marco Rubio. He had offered a revision of the DREAM Act that would have enabled some children of aliens who enroll in college or join one of the military services.
Mr. Rubio has all but given up. “People are going to say to me, ‘why are we going to need to do anything on this now?’ It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election. And it is going to be hard to argue with that.”
This is exactly the result that President Obama and the open-borders Democrats envisioned. The president prefers not to consult with Congress, which is messy, like democracy itself, and congressmen occasionally ask questions that interrupt the messianic oratory. Careful comprehensive reform would have meant sharing the credit and the gratitude; this way Mr. Obama gets all the credit and by making it seem “temporary” he can keep the kids and their parents uneasy about their future. Keeping the peasants uneasy about the future, extending suffering and rationing the aspirin, is the oldest trick in the politician’s playbook.
But there was even more method in the president’s madness. By springing this remarkable expansion of presidential prerogative now, he can test congressional concern for the Constitution and courage to do anything about it, however revolutionary the damage inflicted. An earlier president attempting to bypass Congress and enforce only the laws he likes would have provoked Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, to stand up on its hind legs and roar defiance and retribution. Alas, those hind legs of Congress have withered, replaced by little lady-like nubbins.
Mr. Obama knows better, and said so only two years ago in answer to Democratic pressure for a presidential decree of amnesty: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true,” he said. “But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.”
Only now he has proved that he can in fact “go and do,” and he can continue to raid the law books in ways the men who wrote the Constitution never imagined a president could “go and do.” Two years ago the Department of Homeland Security – which seems to imagine itself the Department of das Fatherland Security – set out in several memoranda, entitled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” just how the president should go about stiffing Congress. This was the roadmap the president used to do what he said he couldn’t do.
There’s more coming, as Mitt Romney breathes closer down his neck and pressure from the left tightens. He can decree asylum, which is not temporary, to ever expanding categories of asylum seekers. Asylum is granted now to those persecuted, or in “fear” of persecution, “on account of race, religion, nationality [or] membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” This could include just everybody, as Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, observes in National Review Online. Asylum already includes women seeking refuge from brutal societies, homosexuals and the handicapped, and it requires little imagination to expand these categories to include residents of Mexico and Central America who fear gunmen of the drug cartels.
Only the heartless want to see the innocents, like the children brought here by their law-breaking parents, sent back to a primitive society and culture they never knew. But allowing a president to make policy based on what he needs to win an election, without consultation with anyone but his campaign handlers, is a heartless disregard of the rule of law we have always held high as the standard that makes America special.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
A revised DREAM act, which could have dealt in an orderly way with the children of illegal aliens in our midst, is dead. Barack Obama couldn’t wait to get the corpse out of the parlor.
The president’s remarkable amnesty by fiat – an amnesty that dare not speak its name – has the immediate effect of giving a permanent temporary pass to 800,000 of these children of illegals. But there’s more to this mercy than the casual eye sees.
This amnesty defers until after the election, and probably for good, comprehensive immigration reform of the sort envisioned by Sen. Marco Rubio. He had offered a revision of the DREAM Act that would have enabled some children of aliens who enroll in college or join one of the military services.
Mr. Rubio has all but given up. “People are going to say to me, ‘why are we going to need to do anything on this now?’ It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election. And it is going to be hard to argue with that.”
This is exactly the result that President Obama and the open-borders Democrats envisioned. The president prefers not to consult with Congress, which is messy, like democracy itself, and congressmen occasionally ask questions that interrupt the messianic oratory. Careful comprehensive reform would have meant sharing the credit and the gratitude; this way Mr. Obama gets all the credit and by making it seem “temporary” he can keep the kids and their parents uneasy about their future. Keeping the peasants uneasy about the future, extending suffering and rationing the aspirin, is the oldest trick in the politician’s playbook.
But there was even more method in the president’s madness. By springing this remarkable expansion of presidential prerogative now, he can test congressional concern for the Constitution and courage to do anything about it, however revolutionary the damage inflicted. An earlier president attempting to bypass Congress and enforce only the laws he likes would have provoked Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, to stand up on its hind legs and roar defiance and retribution. Alas, those hind legs of Congress have withered, replaced by little lady-like nubbins.
Mr. Obama knows better, and said so only two years ago in answer to Democratic pressure for a presidential decree of amnesty: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true,” he said. “But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.”
Only now he has proved that he can in fact “go and do,” and he can continue to raid the law books in ways the men who wrote the Constitution never imagined a president could “go and do.” Two years ago the Department of Homeland Security – which seems to imagine itself the Department of das Fatherland Security – set out in several memoranda, entitled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” just how the president should go about stiffing Congress. This was the roadmap the president used to do what he said he couldn’t do.
There’s more coming, as Mitt Romney breathes closer down his neck and pressure from the left tightens. He can decree asylum, which is not temporary, to ever expanding categories of asylum seekers. Asylum is granted now to those persecuted, or in “fear” of persecution, “on account of race, religion, nationality [or] membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” This could include just everybody, as Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, observes in National Review Online. Asylum already includes women seeking refuge from brutal societies, homosexuals and the handicapped, and it requires little imagination to expand these categories to include residents of Mexico and Central America who fear gunmen of the drug cartels.
Only the heartless want to see the innocents, like the children brought here by their law-breaking parents, sent back to a primitive society and culture they never knew. But allowing a president to make policy based on what he needs to win an election, without consultation with anyone but his campaign handlers, is a heartless disregard of the rule of law we have always held high as the standard that makes America special.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Friday, May 27, 2011
That They Shall Not Have Died In Vain
It has been said that when a man or woman joins the military, they sign a blank check. That blank check is their pledge to pay any price, up to and including their life, in service to their country.
Memorial Day is a special day that is set aside to honor those that paid that blank check with his or her life.
Thousands of persons dating from the American Revolution in 1776 to the present have attempted to express the nation’s gratitude for the sacrifices made by these men and women. None have done it better or more eloquently than the following:
"It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
This quotation is from the “Gettysburg Address" which was delivered by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the cemetery located on one of the fields of the Battle of Gettysburg. When Lincoln gave this speech America was only 87 years old and was engaged in a great civil war.
Lincoln did more than honor the dead! He made a plea that “we the living be highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.“
President Lincoln knew that no matter how many men died on the battlefield, the nation would have to be preserved by the people and their elected representatives.
And so it is today!
Last November, Republicans won a startling victory in which they gained control of the House, made major inroads to the Senate, and gained control of the overwhelming majority of the Statehouses.
It was clear that we the people were and are opposed to Obamacare and the vast majority of Obama’s agenda. It is very clear that the voters want for runaway spending to end.
A few days ago in an irrelevant New York district a Democrat defeated a weak Republican candidate for a seat in the House of Representatives. Already we see the Republican leadership has forgotten the November victories and are in a panic over this one vote. If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders are afraid to stand up for the people, lets kick them aside and get on with saving this nation from its most destructive enemy the Democrat/Marxist party.
On this Memorial Day, We Americans need to make the pledge that we the living be highly resolved that those who died in the service to this country shall not have died in vain; and that we will do whatever is necessary to restore a government of the people, by the people, for the people as is clearly defined by the Constitution. -- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Memorial Day is a special day that is set aside to honor those that paid that blank check with his or her life.
Thousands of persons dating from the American Revolution in 1776 to the present have attempted to express the nation’s gratitude for the sacrifices made by these men and women. None have done it better or more eloquently than the following:
"It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
This quotation is from the “Gettysburg Address" which was delivered by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the cemetery located on one of the fields of the Battle of Gettysburg. When Lincoln gave this speech America was only 87 years old and was engaged in a great civil war.
Lincoln did more than honor the dead! He made a plea that “we the living be highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.“
President Lincoln knew that no matter how many men died on the battlefield, the nation would have to be preserved by the people and their elected representatives.
And so it is today!
Last November, Republicans won a startling victory in which they gained control of the House, made major inroads to the Senate, and gained control of the overwhelming majority of the Statehouses.
It was clear that we the people were and are opposed to Obamacare and the vast majority of Obama’s agenda. It is very clear that the voters want for runaway spending to end.
A few days ago in an irrelevant New York district a Democrat defeated a weak Republican candidate for a seat in the House of Representatives. Already we see the Republican leadership has forgotten the November victories and are in a panic over this one vote. If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders are afraid to stand up for the people, lets kick them aside and get on with saving this nation from its most destructive enemy the Democrat/Marxist party.
On this Memorial Day, We Americans need to make the pledge that we the living be highly resolved that those who died in the service to this country shall not have died in vain; and that we will do whatever is necessary to restore a government of the people, by the people, for the people as is clearly defined by the Constitution. -- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Soros/Obama Conspire To, “End America as we know it!”
A few weeks ago, George Soros hosted a major economic conference, called the Bretton Woods Event, whose purpose was to change the entire global economy. The main objective is to remove America as a key player in the world’s economy by destroying the Dollar. The major media paid little attention to the event.
What can George Soros do to harm the Dollar? You may ask.
It was the billionaire Soros who crushed the British pound through currency trading. He has declared that he plans to reform the world’s currency system. The America hating Soros has publicly stated, America must end its reign as the world reserve currency. In 2009, Soros wrote, “The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.”
In October 2009, Soros founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with a donation of $50 million of his own money. The founding of INET was a major move toward undermining the dollar.
Long time Soros friend, Nobel Prize Winner, Joseph Stiglitz chairs the ‘UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.’ Stiglitz is arguing for a new 'global system,' saying the current one is 'fundamentally unfair because it means that poor countries are lending to the U.S. at close to zero interest rates.'
It has only been a few weeks, since the Bretton Woods event, but the move against the dollar has gained momentum rapidly. In 2009, Soros wrote “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.”
Those rising powers have begun to join together--
The BRICS member nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – held a summit meeting one week after Soros held his. The BRICS nations are calling for “Restructuring of the World War II-era global financial system and an eventual end to the long reign of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.”
One of the options being considered is called “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs). SDRs are essentially a mix of - the Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling and U.S. Dollar. A switch to the SDRs would result in the decline of the U.S. economy.
There is also considerable support to include the Chinese Remimbi in the SDR’s.
The odds on favorite to become the new leader of the “International Monetary Fund is former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This is significant because Brown is a Soros believer and attended the Bretton Woods Event.
Brown’s major contribution to that conference was the line, “American and European dominance is no longer a fact.'
Soros once pledged that he was willing to spend every penny of his vast fortune to bring America to her knees. He is working hard to make that desire a reality.
For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza, MoveOn.org, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that Soros, through his many organizations, bought the 2008 election for Obama.
Obama, who also hates America (read his damn books) is repaying Soros big time!
Just look at what Obama is doing to undermine the economy and the dollar:
1. Extremely high fuel prices cause by the administration!
2. Bankruptcy as the result of government spending
3. A total moratorium on any new Oil and Gas production
4. Destruction of the Coal Industry and forcing the shutdown of Coal fueled power plants
5. The pushing of Cap and Trade regulations by the EPA
6. The government seizure of corporations, with more to come
7. The massive redistribution of wealth
8. The takeover (and destruction) of the healthcare system
9. The absolute refusal to recognize the need for budget-cuts
10. He has done absolutely nothing to help create jobs.
All of these have led to a major reduction in the United State’s bond rating, as announced by Standard and Poors, this week.
That reduction in our bond rating has greatly strengthened Soros' hand, and you now have the makings for “The End of America as we know it!”
“The End of America as we know it!”; wasn’t that an Obama campaign pledge?
Obama's answer to everything is a big speech packed with lies.
-- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
What can George Soros do to harm the Dollar? You may ask.
It was the billionaire Soros who crushed the British pound through currency trading. He has declared that he plans to reform the world’s currency system. The America hating Soros has publicly stated, America must end its reign as the world reserve currency. In 2009, Soros wrote, “The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.”
In October 2009, Soros founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with a donation of $50 million of his own money. The founding of INET was a major move toward undermining the dollar.
Long time Soros friend, Nobel Prize Winner, Joseph Stiglitz chairs the ‘UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.’ Stiglitz is arguing for a new 'global system,' saying the current one is 'fundamentally unfair because it means that poor countries are lending to the U.S. at close to zero interest rates.'
It has only been a few weeks, since the Bretton Woods event, but the move against the dollar has gained momentum rapidly. In 2009, Soros wrote “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.”
Those rising powers have begun to join together--
The BRICS member nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – held a summit meeting one week after Soros held his. The BRICS nations are calling for “Restructuring of the World War II-era global financial system and an eventual end to the long reign of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.”
One of the options being considered is called “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs). SDRs are essentially a mix of - the Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling and U.S. Dollar. A switch to the SDRs would result in the decline of the U.S. economy.
There is also considerable support to include the Chinese Remimbi in the SDR’s.
The odds on favorite to become the new leader of the “International Monetary Fund is former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This is significant because Brown is a Soros believer and attended the Bretton Woods Event.
Brown’s major contribution to that conference was the line, “American and European dominance is no longer a fact.'
Soros once pledged that he was willing to spend every penny of his vast fortune to bring America to her knees. He is working hard to make that desire a reality.
For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza, MoveOn.org, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that Soros, through his many organizations, bought the 2008 election for Obama.
Obama, who also hates America (read his damn books) is repaying Soros big time!
Just look at what Obama is doing to undermine the economy and the dollar:
1. Extremely high fuel prices cause by the administration!
2. Bankruptcy as the result of government spending
3. A total moratorium on any new Oil and Gas production
4. Destruction of the Coal Industry and forcing the shutdown of Coal fueled power plants
5. The pushing of Cap and Trade regulations by the EPA
6. The government seizure of corporations, with more to come
7. The massive redistribution of wealth
8. The takeover (and destruction) of the healthcare system
9. The absolute refusal to recognize the need for budget-cuts
10. He has done absolutely nothing to help create jobs.
All of these have led to a major reduction in the United State’s bond rating, as announced by Standard and Poors, this week.
That reduction in our bond rating has greatly strengthened Soros' hand, and you now have the makings for “The End of America as we know it!”
“The End of America as we know it!”; wasn’t that an Obama campaign pledge?
Obama's answer to everything is a big speech packed with lies.
-- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
What Is A Legal War?
Politian’s, Political Writers, and others claim that an undeclared war is an illegal war.
Are they correct?
What does the Constitution have to say on the matter and what is the History of American Wars?
Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution says 'Congress shall have power to.. Declare war'
That is all the Constitution has to say. No specific format or terminology is defined or specified, nor is the term "Declaration of War" found anywhere in the Constitution.
Furthermore, despite the constitutional requirement that only Congress declare war, it does not require that a war must be declared. In practice, throughout history the United States has fought wars based on 'authorizations' and only used the term 'Declare War' at the specific request of the President.
The term 'Declaration of War' has been used for 5 events:
War of 1812 under James Madison
Mexican-American War (1836)
Spanish-American War (1898)
World War I (1914)
World War II (1942) had muliple declarations
Authorized wars, not using the term 'declaration' include:
Quasi-War (1798) under President John Adams
First Barbary War (1801) under Thomas Jefferson
Second Barbary War (1815) under James Madison
Raid on Slave Trade (1820) under James Monroe
Retaliation on Portugal (1859)
Korea War (1870)
Philippine-American War (1898)
Intervention in Russian Revolution (1918)
Protection of Lebanon (1958)
Viet-Nam War (1964)
Multinational force in Lebanon (1983)
Invasion of Panama (1989)
Persian Gulf War (1991)
War in Afghanistan (2001)
Iraq War (2002)
The Korean War (1950) was not authorized by the U.S. Congress, but was fought under authority of a United Nation resolution.
There have also been a number of ‘Police Actions’ in which U.S. Armed Forces have been deployed, such as Clinton's use of troops in the Kosovo War.
Note that the first two wars were not 'declared' wars. Surely, those early Presidents knew the wording and the intent of the Constitution.
Congress, after World War II, limited its own power to 'Declare War' to using 'Authorizations of Force'. The reasoning behind this action was that a ‘Declaration of War’ gave unbridled power to the President to wage war in any manner and with any weapons as he deemed appropriate. Whereas, an 'Authorizations of Force' would permit Congress to set limits.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' limits the power of the President to wage war. This act clearly defines how many soldiers can be deployed, and for how long without approval of Congress. The constitutionality of this act has never been tested, but with the sole exception of President Clinton's use of troops in the air campaign during the Kosovo War, all Presidents have received Congressional authorization as required under the act.
The wording of the Constitution and the historical actions of Congress indicate that any Act, either 'Declared' or 'Authorized', that provides funding and approves the use of deadly force meets the requirements of 'Legality' for the President of the United States to wage war.
The remaining question on a ‘Declaration of War’ is; Does the President, need authorization from Congress before he commits the Armed Forces to battle?
From a practical standpoint-- It can be reasoned that the Constitution grants full power to the President to wage war without prior approval of Congress.
The Constitution prohibits the states from engaging in war without the consent of Congress, unless the state is actually invaded or is in imminent danger. There are no such constitutional restrictions placed on the President
The Constitution charges the President with the protection of the nation and its citizens. One can envision many scenarios in which to fulfill that obligation the President would need to act immediately. When the Constitution was enacted Congress was part-time and could takes days or weeks to convene. It doesn't seem reasonable that the Constitution would have tied the President's hands to act for that long. Today, Congress could convene in far less time, but warfare has also changed; modern long range weapons may require the President to act in minutes.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' indicates that the Congress recognizes the Presidents’ unilateral power to engage in war and with this act Congress attempts to limit that Presidential Power.
There is another serious issue. Sadly, Congress leaks like a sieve! Congress has probably always had leaks, but in the 1800’s it took weeks for a leak to spread. Today you can't tell Congress a secret because the New York Times will publish it, mainstream media will broadcast it, and it will be on the Internet before it stops echoing off the walls of the Congressional chambers.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Are they correct?
What does the Constitution have to say on the matter and what is the History of American Wars?
Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution says 'Congress shall have power to.. Declare war'
That is all the Constitution has to say. No specific format or terminology is defined or specified, nor is the term "Declaration of War" found anywhere in the Constitution.
Furthermore, despite the constitutional requirement that only Congress declare war, it does not require that a war must be declared. In practice, throughout history the United States has fought wars based on 'authorizations' and only used the term 'Declare War' at the specific request of the President.
The term 'Declaration of War' has been used for 5 events:
War of 1812 under James Madison
Mexican-American War (1836)
Spanish-American War (1898)
World War I (1914)
World War II (1942) had muliple declarations
Authorized wars, not using the term 'declaration' include:
Quasi-War (1798) under President John Adams
First Barbary War (1801) under Thomas Jefferson
Second Barbary War (1815) under James Madison
Raid on Slave Trade (1820) under James Monroe
Retaliation on Portugal (1859)
Korea War (1870)
Philippine-American War (1898)
Intervention in Russian Revolution (1918)
Protection of Lebanon (1958)
Viet-Nam War (1964)
Multinational force in Lebanon (1983)
Invasion of Panama (1989)
Persian Gulf War (1991)
War in Afghanistan (2001)
Iraq War (2002)
The Korean War (1950) was not authorized by the U.S. Congress, but was fought under authority of a United Nation resolution.
There have also been a number of ‘Police Actions’ in which U.S. Armed Forces have been deployed, such as Clinton's use of troops in the Kosovo War.
Note that the first two wars were not 'declared' wars. Surely, those early Presidents knew the wording and the intent of the Constitution.
Congress, after World War II, limited its own power to 'Declare War' to using 'Authorizations of Force'. The reasoning behind this action was that a ‘Declaration of War’ gave unbridled power to the President to wage war in any manner and with any weapons as he deemed appropriate. Whereas, an 'Authorizations of Force' would permit Congress to set limits.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' limits the power of the President to wage war. This act clearly defines how many soldiers can be deployed, and for how long without approval of Congress. The constitutionality of this act has never been tested, but with the sole exception of President Clinton's use of troops in the air campaign during the Kosovo War, all Presidents have received Congressional authorization as required under the act.
The wording of the Constitution and the historical actions of Congress indicate that any Act, either 'Declared' or 'Authorized', that provides funding and approves the use of deadly force meets the requirements of 'Legality' for the President of the United States to wage war.
The remaining question on a ‘Declaration of War’ is; Does the President, need authorization from Congress before he commits the Armed Forces to battle?
From a practical standpoint-- It can be reasoned that the Constitution grants full power to the President to wage war without prior approval of Congress.
The Constitution prohibits the states from engaging in war without the consent of Congress, unless the state is actually invaded or is in imminent danger. There are no such constitutional restrictions placed on the President
The Constitution charges the President with the protection of the nation and its citizens. One can envision many scenarios in which to fulfill that obligation the President would need to act immediately. When the Constitution was enacted Congress was part-time and could takes days or weeks to convene. It doesn't seem reasonable that the Constitution would have tied the President's hands to act for that long. Today, Congress could convene in far less time, but warfare has also changed; modern long range weapons may require the President to act in minutes.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' indicates that the Congress recognizes the Presidents’ unilateral power to engage in war and with this act Congress attempts to limit that Presidential Power.
There is another serious issue. Sadly, Congress leaks like a sieve! Congress has probably always had leaks, but in the 1800’s it took weeks for a leak to spread. Today you can't tell Congress a secret because the New York Times will publish it, mainstream media will broadcast it, and it will be on the Internet before it stops echoing off the walls of the Congressional chambers.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Legal Declarations Of War
Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution says 'Congress shall have power to.. declare war'
That is all it says. No specific format or terminology is defined or specified, nor is the term "Declaration of War" found anywhere in the Constitution.
Furthermore, despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, it does not require that a war must be declared. In practice, throughout history the United States has fought wars based on 'authorizations' and only used the term 'Declare War' at the specific request of the President.
The term 'Declaration of War' have been used for 5 events, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.
Authorized wars, not using the term 'declaration' date all the way back to the Quasi-War (1798) under President John Adams and continue with the First Barbary War (1801), Second Barbary War (1815), the Raid on Slave Trade (1820), Retaliation on Portugal (1859), Korea (1870), Philippine-American War (1898), Intervention in Russian Revolution (1918), Protection of Lebanon (1958), Viet-Nam (1964), Multinational force in Lebanon (1983), Invasion of Panama (1989), Persian Gulf War (1991), War in Afghanistan (2001), and the Iraq War (2002).
The Korean War was not authorized by the U.S. Congress, but was fought under authority of a United Nation resolution.
Congress, after World War II, limited its own power to 'Declare War' to using 'Authorizations of Force'.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' limits the power of the President to wage war.
The act clearly defines how many soldiers can be deployed, and for how long without approval of Congress. The constitutionality of this act has never been decided, but with the sole exception of President Clinton's use of troops in the air campaign during the Kosovo War, all Presidents have received Congressional authorization as required under the act.
The wording of the Constitution and the historical actions of Congress indicate that any Act, either 'Declared' or 'Authorized', that provides funding and approves the use of deadly force meets the requirements of 'Legality' for the President of the United States to wage war.
That is all it says. No specific format or terminology is defined or specified, nor is the term "Declaration of War" found anywhere in the Constitution.
Furthermore, despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, it does not require that a war must be declared. In practice, throughout history the United States has fought wars based on 'authorizations' and only used the term 'Declare War' at the specific request of the President.
The term 'Declaration of War' have been used for 5 events, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.
Authorized wars, not using the term 'declaration' date all the way back to the Quasi-War (1798) under President John Adams and continue with the First Barbary War (1801), Second Barbary War (1815), the Raid on Slave Trade (1820), Retaliation on Portugal (1859), Korea (1870), Philippine-American War (1898), Intervention in Russian Revolution (1918), Protection of Lebanon (1958), Viet-Nam (1964), Multinational force in Lebanon (1983), Invasion of Panama (1989), Persian Gulf War (1991), War in Afghanistan (2001), and the Iraq War (2002).
The Korean War was not authorized by the U.S. Congress, but was fought under authority of a United Nation resolution.
Congress, after World War II, limited its own power to 'Declare War' to using 'Authorizations of Force'.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' limits the power of the President to wage war.
The act clearly defines how many soldiers can be deployed, and for how long without approval of Congress. The constitutionality of this act has never been decided, but with the sole exception of President Clinton's use of troops in the air campaign during the Kosovo War, all Presidents have received Congressional authorization as required under the act.
The wording of the Constitution and the historical actions of Congress indicate that any Act, either 'Declared' or 'Authorized', that provides funding and approves the use of deadly force meets the requirements of 'Legality' for the President of the United States to wage war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
