Memory IS TERRRORISMcycle of the debate. I actually have little problem with the general assertion
Legally speaking, we are not now at war with Iraq, nor were we ever at war with Iraq under Bush I or Clinton. Congress never issued a declaration of war, and only Congress can do so--the Constitution couldn't be much clearer on this. The real question is the legal significance of a Declaration of War; nothing in Constitution limits the Presidential authority as CIC in the absence of a Declaration.Since the moment that we abandon any effort to draw any legal distinction between the actions of the three administrations there is a set of really fun and amusing WarmFuzzies.
Call Me old school - but the generalized assertion that the Constitution places no limits on what the President can do as CIC in the absence of a Declaration of War seems somewhat pattently absurd. How can the President be conducting 'war stuff' when the nation is not at War? Is there suppose to be some majikal codical to the Constitution for those 'neither/nor' moments when it is politically cooler to be not really at war, but gosh, we're just not feeling that springtime freshness that comes with not being at war. When the domestic political requirements mandate that the President Play the CIC for no apparent reason other that strictly domestic political expediencies.
Or is this one of those Moral Relativisms that is allowable when the President Is Cooler, and not like, well, Those Types Of People. But is NOT allowable when, well, it's just not cool to like the President.
Oh dear, did I propose Moral Relativism as the exit strategy here? Would this be the wrong place to park ikkyu2 concern Did you know that one of the Army's top where he references an LA Times article that it is possible that the Army's Top Ethicist committed suicide over the lack of being able to do an Honorable Deed in ThatIraqiThingiePoo.
So we're back to basics I guess. If the president majikally has unlimited powers to do war stuff without a declaration of war - because, well gosh, the current GWOT (Global Whatever On TheyThemThoseTypes) is a political construct and not a legal construct.... then are we advocating more of this moral relativism as the wave of the future?
What happened to the older notion of restoring the Dignity to the White House, A strict constructionists approach to Constitutional Law, and well, damn, just the simple plain old fashion 'supporting the troops'.
What complicates Sploof's position is that the NeoCons actually BELIEVE that by what ever wave of the Harry Potter Wand the United States is More At War than ever before - never mind the legal technical details. Which gosh, is really not all that surprising, they were all supporters of LBJ's dirty little 'war like processed product' in south east asia, just so long as they were allowed to be, well, gosh, just like now, more anti-anti-war than anyone else, but without any obligation to follow through with, well, getting up off their duffs and into the game.
It will be far easier for me to believe that folks actually BELIEVE that the constitution matters, and that the nation is no more at war, when they decide to actually act as IF that was a factual basis that didn't need to be spun everytime.
Making pretty distinctions between 'a political construct' and 'a legal construct' would be useful IF they were in any way relevant. But given that so many americans are convinced that in spite of the 'legal data' that we are 'not at war', that this should impede their political posturing that we are at war. A problem that runs from the CIC down....
So why not try to work out a way that we can get those legal distinctions sorted out?