Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Making War
Message-ID: <165@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 13:20:49 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.165
Posted: Wed Mar 19 13:20:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 05:44:17 EST
References: <1753@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: Relational Technology Inc, Alameda CA
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.politics:14075 net.legal:3146

> 
> 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 Chief 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.

Sometime before the U.S. sent troops to Viet Nam, Congress granted the
President the right to make "police actions".  The idea was that sometimes the
President would need to take action quickly without taking the time for
Congress to approve it.  However, the law didn't say how long the police
action could last without the approval of Congress.  The whole of the U.S.
involvement in Viet Nam was a police action (under this definition); that is,
Congress never officially declared war, but instead gave the President the
right to wage war without the approval of congress.  After the Viet Nam war,
Congress amended the law on police actions to limit the length of time they
could go on without congressional approval.

All of this is really just legal mumbo-jumbo compared to the politics of the
time.  If a majority of representatives and senators had openly opposed
sending U.S. troops to Viet Nam, it probably wouldn't have happened.  Either
that, or they would have been sent and then pulled back.  However, at the time
most members of Congress agreed with Johnson's and Nixon's policies in
Southeast Asia.

> 
>    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

It used to be considered unthinkable to go to war against an enemy without
declaring one's intentions.  It seems likely that the writers of the
Constitution didn't even consider who should have the right to decide to fight
an undeclared war.  I see no evidence that the writers of the Constitution
didn't want the government to have the right to wage war.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff