Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw From: elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal Subject: Re: Making War Message-ID: <440@netexa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 12:06:02 EST Article-I.D.: netexa.440 Posted: Thu Mar 20 12:06:02 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 22:31:34 EST References: <1753@decwrl.DEC.COM> Organization: NetExpress, Inc., Vienna, VA Lines: 33 Xref: watmath net.politics:14091 net.legal:3152 > ... > 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? Personally, I've no idea whether it does or not. However, there are occasions when the delay needed to "declare war" would be sufficient to give an 'enemy' an unavoidable win. Yet, at the same time, giving the president the power to 'move forces at will' also gives him the power to 'cause' a war. Regardless of the desires of the congress. > > 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 There are certain results of avoiding war at _ALL_ costs that I personally would find much too expensive. My current feeling is that allowing the president to 'move forces at will', while requiring an act of congress to 'declare war' is a reasonable compromise between being able to act fast when needed, and yet limiting the power of the president such that he is not a 'monarch'. (i.e. accountable only to himself and god.). E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress, Inc. Virginia