Does Declare War really only mean to fund war?

It seems a rather twisted way to interpret the language.

But we don’t have to guess.
Look at what the founders said.
Hamilton regarding new naval vessels and piracy said “employ the ships as convoys, with authority to repel force by force (but not to capture) and to repress hostilities within our waters, including a marine league from our coasts. Anything beyond this must fall under the idea of reprisals, and requires the sanctions of that department which is to declare or make war” referring to congress.
Hamilton, who was probably the staunchest advocate of a strong executive..

I don’t think you can find any of the significant founders that believed the president should have the power to declare war or initiate hostilities.

I simply find it impossible to believe the only limit congress has to the president making war is to withdraw funding and possibly risk orphaning the military in overseas conflicts or as TR proposed abandoning them halfway around the world according to streiff’s comment. TR, by his own words, massively expanded executive power at the expense of constitutional government. He was the first major Progressive President and it is not in the least surprising that he would “force” the hand of congress on funding in the way suggested.

It is also no different than if Obama were to drag us to Tripoli and then leave it to congress to fund the war or be accused of abandoning the military. It is self evident the time to argue about going to war is before the troops go in not after they are on the ground and needing to be resupplied.

The text doesn’t support the conclusion of Presidents having a “war making” power that extends beyond exigent circumstances. and neither do contemporaneous writings.

None of this is meant to deny that once war is declared or force authorized, the President is to prosecute the war as commander in chief.

Another thing I would point out about the TR comment combined with the de-funding argument is this, TR said he had enough money to get the fleet halfway around the world in existing funds. The argument then becomes not just de-funding a particular military action because according to TR’s philosophy other funds can be used to accomplish what congress refuses to fund. Meaning the only sure way congress could de-fund a determined President would be to de-fund the entire military or they would risk seeing the President re-purpose other funds to use to start a war they expressly refused to fund.

There has to be a limit to a Presidents ability to start wars willy-nilly. If you look into the writings of the founders you will see this was a major concern of theirs because they had just separated from a king who started wars and expected them to pay for them.

I said congressional authorization was needed except in emergencies.

I do think a declaration of war is a good idea. Particularly if it contains things like, why we are going to war, who we are at war with, how we define victory, etc.

I think that makes sense for a lot of the reasons you noted, given that during a state of war we can expect to see some limitations on liberty the idea of open ended, poorly defined war leads to open ended, ever increasing, restrictions on liberty.
When does the War on Terror end? What is victory? Does anybody think victory is achievable? Depends on how you define it I guess. Since terrorism (or even just islamic terrorism) has been around a lot longer than the US has been a nation it would seem we may be in a perpetual war. We are certainly not ever going to end terrorism.

Besides as Allen West has noted, terrorism is a tactic not an opponent.

With that knowledge who are we fighting? You or I might say radical islam but does the President acknowledge that? If so why are nuns being searched by islamists at the airport?
http://sago.com/2011/03/11/pictures-from-obamas-america-2/

streiff may correct me on this but I think if we base the beginning of the War on Terror from 9/11/01 through today, we are now in the longest war the US has ever fought, with no end in sight. (possible exception being Vietnam our other great undeclared war.) In this case there has obviously been congressional approval throughout. Which only goes to show even that offers little protection in the form of protecting civil liberties. I speak primarily of T&A here but some of the other stuff contained in the Patriot Act and its various re-auths, while perhaps appropriate during a war are now becoming ingrained as a way of life. Again no definition of an end in sight here either.

But back to the original question of whether the President has the power to unilaterally go to war.
When you grant that the President has an emergency power to make war it naturally follows that only the President can determine whether a particular circumstance fits the definition.

The President gets to decide. That is not the same as saying he always decides correctly. Or that congress doesn’t have the power and responsibility to make that determination after the fact.

If we have a limited government that admits no limit on the Presidents power to make war we really don’t have a limited government. Consider streiff’s point somewhere in this thread, concerning the Civil War, this also was according to the argument a case of the President acting unilaterally in a war against a considerable part of the American people.
Not only did the President make war against a significant portion of the American people who by rights could be classified as belligerents but he also made war against non-combatants.
My purpose here isn?t to refight the Civil War. Instead I note it because streiff used it as an example of how a President in history legitimately used his power to make war.

This means Presidents can ?make war? against anybody they wish, including US citizens, in whatever manner they wish, at a time of their choosing, for any reason they please or no reason at all and the only recourse the American people have is to hope congress defunds the effort and restricts any other funding available to the executive to prevent repurposing OR congress can impeach the President.

If the President chooses to allow congress to take those actions.

Another aside related to funding. Can the President and by extension the military use any resources captured during the prosecution of a war to further prosecute the war? I would say yes, he clearly can and rightly so. However, if the power of the purse strings are the only limitations congress can impose on the Presidents war making powers, does it follow that a President who makes war on an enemy with significant resources cannot in anyway, other than by impeachment, be stopped from making war? The power to defund neutered by his choice of enemy. What if the enemy is the rich? Sound far-fetched? Have you heard Obama?

Again using the Civil War?s conduct we see a President supporting the arrest and detention of a congressman and a federal judge for opposing his war aims. We also have the unconfirmed assertion that Lincoln briefly contemplated the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the confirmed fact that Chief Justice Taney considered it a real possibility that he would be arrested. So the congressman leading the effort to end war funding is arrested, a federal judge issuing writs of habeas corpus arrested and the Chief Justice who would have presided over any impeachment threatened by arrest.

This is the system of checks the constitution provides?

This, by the way, is the concern raised by Patrick Henry as quoted by Yoo in the paper streiff recommended. Turns out he was correct, for that is the place we have arrived today; no effective check on the President?s war making powers.

Maybe when the next Civil War comes it will be as an attack by a President against bitter clingers. It is up to him to decide.

No one questions the modern Presidency has all of the powers ascribed to it by streiff. If I understand his assertion correctly, GC has it right. Congress has historically totally abdicated its responsibility to effectively check the President in this regard. We have arrived at the likely end of that irresponsible behavior.

My concern is that we have a guy who without question hates America who now has the ability to order our guys into service where that service is designed to destroy us.

Precisely the opposite of what they and I assume you swore to do.

In the past we could agree or disagree over any particular deployment with at least a basic understanding that the President was TRYING to act for the best interests of the nation according to his views, opinions, facts and intel.

That is simply no longer true. Obama clearly hates the US.

Maybe it doesn’t matter concerning congressional approval. Boehner clearly doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the left or Obama. If he did it still wouldn’t matter since impeachment would never fly through the senate and probably won’t after 2012 because even if we control the senate we will not have the numbers to convict on impeachment.

And yes, with Boehner pi$$ing all over himself (and us) trying to please the left 2012 is not looking as certain as it should.

I don’t support nation building where we put cavemen into tuxedos and pretend they are statesmen when we all know they will be right back in the gopher skins the day we leave.

The Paul acolyte stuff is nonsense. I supported taking down the Taliban and busting Iraq.

The rest, I base my opinion on what the founders were saying and writing at the time of ratification.

I don’t expect you to agree with me just saying my piece.

Always well written.

As I quoted above from a letter written by Hamilton THE Federalist who said, “employ the ships as convoys, with authority to repel force by force (but not to capture) and to repress hostilities within our waters, including a marine league from our coasts. Anything beyond this must fall under the idea of reprisals, and requires the sanctions of that department which is to declare or make war” meaning congress.

If the Federalists won what of Hamilton?

But rather than re argue that I do have a rhetorical question. If congress need not be consulted, and I generally agree with your assessment regarding their character, what the heck are we consulting with the UN for?

As little as many think of congress lower still is any honest assessment of the UN.