Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site cad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!cad!hijab
From: hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Making War
Message-ID: <106@cad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 01:47:23 EST
Article-I.D.: cad.106
Posted: Wed Mar 19 01:47:23 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Mar-86 18:06:50 EST
References: <1753@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: U. C. Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 24
Xref: lsuc net.politics:3773 net.legal:1948
Summary: Apply the checks and balances test

In article <1753@decwrl.DEC.COM>, mahoney@bartok.DEC writes:
> 
> This fact is that the Constitutional Convention specifically took out the
> words "make war" and changed them to "declare war" for powers of congress.
> While giving the right to the President as Commander and Cheif the right to
> move forces around as he saw fit.  Does this give the right to the president
> to make war?

If the president could make war as s/he saw fit, then the power of the
congress to "declare" war would be an empty one. If you apply the general
constitutional principle that no branch of government should have absolute
power in any one area without being checked by the other two branches, it
becomes evident that the interpretation giving wide ranging powers to the
president to wage acts of war has been an abuse of the constitution. My
guess is that the war making powers given to the president were intended
for emergencies where the president had to act in the interim period 
required for the congress to convene and deliberate. On the outside this
should be thought of as a period of days.

As  to the distinction between "making" and "declaring" war, It seems to
me that the constitution gave congress the option of declaring war without
necessarily having to engage in hostilities. Thus a war could be declared,
to be followed immediately by negotiations, mediation, etc. that could
avert "comsummation" of the war declaration.