Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Making War
Message-ID: <626@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 14:01:53 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.626
Posted: Wed Mar 19 14:01:53 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 05:04:42 EST
References: <1753@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 35
Xref: watmath net.politics:14071 net.legal:3144

> 
> I am sending this to both news groups because I think it has significance
> in both.  I ask that people continue to cross-post on this particular 
> subject, but because of the cross postings to stick to the topic and not
> digress.  I don't want to hear Reagan bashing or any other crap like that.
> If you do digress make appropriate changes to the heading thank you very much.
> 
>   I was talking with my father yesterday and he told me and interesting fact.
> (my father is a history teacher and he didn't realize this until recently)
> 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?
>   Some constitutional lawyers say yes.  (They had a show on much like Meet the
> Press) One of the people who says yes is Ed Muskie.  He said that is why 
> they did not take Johnson to court over Vietnam.  He and others like him 
> felt that they would lose.  That by specifically changing the words as they did
> that they granted the power to make war to the president.
> 
>    My personal belief is that they wanted to take that right away from the
> government altogether. I think this could be an interesting what could they
> have meant.  So what do you people think?  Does this give to much power to the
> President?  I say yes that the making of war is something to be avoided at all
> costs.
> 
>    Brian Mahoney

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, it could take several months
for Congress to convene in emergency session.  That's no longer the case.
I suspect the current law requiring Congressional approval for military
actions beyond the specified number of days would be applauded by the
Founding Fathers because it prevents the President from engaging in a long
war, but still provides the ability for the Commander-in-Chief to take
immediate action where delay could be a threat to national security.